Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 OK, here's another subject to arouse some discussion. In particular, the main physical elements of any addiction in general. I'll start with this message, containing my own thoughts; then I'd like to hear others'. I've heard many times about how this or that is " addictive " . The obvious case is with hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, nicotine--oops, did I just include a legal drug in the same group as illegal ones? ;- ) Then there are the other substances with different gradations of social stigma, like marijuana, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, and the one we're all (at some stage of) swaring off: cooked " food " . When I've heard it said that all these substances are " addictive " , many times I have reflected, " Come to think of it, what is it that's common to all of them that makes them physically and/or psychologically 'addictive'? What is the essential nature of addiction in general? " In this thought process, I've first asked myself, what does the word " addiction " literally mean? Like many English words, it's derived from Latin. The " ad- " prefix is a Latin preposition and prefix that basically means " toward " . The " dict " stem is from a common Latin verb meaning (at its most basic level) " say " , " indicate with words " (that English word right there, " indicate " , has another form of this Latin stem in it yet again). The Latin verb also had a meaning of " appoint " or " command " connected to it, besides just the basic meaning of " say " . The other English words " dictate " , " dictation " , and " dictator " , also with this Latin stem in them, have more to do with this part of the meaning. This is where the common meaning of our English word " addiction " most relates. Having thus pieced out the Latin parts, I could see how the English verb " addict " 's subparts, when put together, literally means " be commanded toward " . An " addict " is literally " commanded toward " something; " addiction " is the state of " being commanded toward " . OK, so that's the literal part of " addiction " . But where/how does any addiction in general arise, how does it come to exist in the first place? What is it about some substance that *makes* it " addictive " ? I've been dissatisfied in looking for any explanation of what I'm talking about here, in the common discussion among raw foodist circles. Everyone says cooked " food " is " addictive " , and may show or point out the *final effects* of the addictiveness as it shows up in *lifestyle*, like Victoria Boutenko did pretty well in that great talk she led, on her last visit here. These discussions have been great at showing that there *is* addiction, the symptoms and signs of addiction. But what I can't recall anyone giving a more in-depth treatment on, and what I've wanted to see and hear more throwing around of ideas about, is the really basic reasons *WHY*. How come/WHY is cooked " food " addictive? Incidentally, many of us would also say there are many " raw " " foods " that are addictive too. So my bottom line question was, what *makes* something addictive? WHY is it addictive? What is it that cooked " food " has in common with drugs that makes them all addictive? Well, I have had (and still have, of course) some thoughts about this, and I'd like to hear yours as well please. So let me share what little I've heard so far, and what my own brain has come up with. I remember posing the question to our dear old friend and true, original RawSeattle.org webmaster, Christian Blackburn. His response was pretty interesting and insightful, I thought. He explained that when we eat cooked, it's unnatural and unhealthy, and our body would really like to detox from it, and tries its best to do so any chance it gets. So if we then cut out some cooked, everything cooked, or even just stop eating (or stop taking the drug, or whatever) for long enough, our body really gets a better chance to devote more of its available life energy to an important detoxing process. Then when our body gets enough into its detoxing, there is some degree of unpleasant sensations that results, and signals go off, whether we are fully conscious and aware of them, or even when it's more subtle and we're not that aware--on some subtle, instinctual, subconscious level we " just don't feel quite right " . Something in us wants to stop this unpleasant detoxing, and, from the habits we have acquired (eating cooked, taking a drug, etc.), we have learned, mostly or entirely subconsciously (that is, without even having to think about it, but just act), that consuming/eating/taking whatever it is we are addicted to, is the best way to stop the detox, and calm down or obliterate the detox symptoms ( " withdrawal " is one word used for the detox symptoms). Well, to me, it was cool to hear this reasoning, as it was a pretty good explanation, one I hadn't thought of myself. Or had I? Although at first not so apparent to me, my own thinking, upon further reflection, *did* provide an explanation that *was* after all pretty similar to Christian's: I remember watching this Bill Moyers series a few years back during my cooked eating, TV-[hey, at least it was mostly Public TV ;-)] watching days about the addictive process as it related to hard drugs. The medical details it went into were the same as were presentated in another set of video footage of a lecture I saw. Both treatises demonstrated how certain substances have the effect on one's body, particularly one's brain, of releasing abnormal levels of neurochemicals or neurotransmitters. The abnormally high levels of certain brain chemicals produces a euphoria or " high " . The addiction part comes about because, after doing whatever drug enough times, the brain will only release enough of the chemical(s) *after the drug is taken again*. The addict has basically " trained their brain " to be used to/accustomed to having the drug sort of do the work of stimulating the outpouring of the chemistry. Then when there's no drug, the brain chemistry that characterizes *normal* functioning is no longer present. The brain per se [ " per se " being Latin for " on its own " , or " by itself " , or " intrinsically " , and NOT " so to speak " , as " per se " is so commonly incorrectly used to mean--the Latin word " se " has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the English word " say " , other than pronunciation...can you tell yet that I'm a big Latin snob? ;-)], without the drug, doesn't know anymore (well, hasn't re- learned again yet) how to do the work it normally *is* able and ready to do on its own [or, " per se " ;-)]. That's where the " crash " is, the withdrawal. The necessary brain chemistry is depleted. Just to get enough of the brain chemistry back again to just feel OK--not even to get " high " anymore--the addict's brain now requires the taking of the drug again--usually more and more of it as time progresses (the " tolerance " effect)--and the addiction has been set in place. How does this scenario relate to eating cooked though? Well, I learned from the book " Food Enzymes: The Missing Link To Radiant Health " by Humbart Santillo, that a similar process happens when one eats cooked. Our bodies respond by doing a massive outpour of digestive enzymes. Our digestive (and other) organs and glands actually eventually go into hypertrophy (overgrowth) over time, to sustain the massive production levels. We all know that our immune system kicks into overdrive too, with the massive outpour of white blood cells [the good ol' " leukocytosis " process--parsing the *Greek* this time, leuko- = " white " , cyt- = " cell " , -osis = see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-osis ; yeah, I'm a Greek snob too ;-)]. Just like with taking drugs, our bodies do the best they know with what they're given, and end up out of balance from these massive outpourings (of brain chemicals, digestive juices, white blood cells, or whatever). By subjecting the body to unnatural conditions, the body will do its best to try to go back to normal. Its attempts to get back to normal are not normal/natural in themselves though, except in the sense that they are a normal response *when an abnormal stimulus (cooked " food " , drugs, whatever) is introduced*. They come about only in response to something unnatural in the first place. The body will never get back to normal/natural until we let it, by stopping the original unnatural situation (eating cooked, taking drugs, whatever). Until we do so, we've conditioned ourselves to only feel OK when we produce these high levels of digestive juices, hormones, brain chemicals, the list goes on. We have to keep up the addictive habit in order to even feel right. We've become addicted. So that's the (or, " an " ) answer/logic I came up with for *why* cooked " food " is " addictive " . As I see it, it's similar to Christian's explanation: when we go through the withdrawal, we subconsciously have learned that the best way we instinctively/subconsciously know to stop the withdrawal (detox), and to feel OK again, is to take in the problem substance, and continue the vicious cycle. (Hey, yet another side note here--the word " vicious " , looking at Latin roots again, has the same stem as the word " vice " ...interesting, no?) It was cool how both his explanation and mine fit together and all made kind of the same sense. Well, hopefully this was all interesting and instructive. It would be my desire to see more such discussion about the idea. So please, carry on with this, " keep the ball rolling " , K? " Yes, " you say? " Thanks, " I say. :-) Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 The definition of " commanded toward " for addiction fits perfectly. When you are addicted to something, the substance commands you to it, taking away your ability to say " no " to something harmful. The interesting part about the addicting substance is that it will give a temporary " high " or heightened state of being that is mistaken for a good thing, when in reality it is very short lived, and the body is worse off later and you have to drug yourself over and over again (and with diminishing results). A wholesome substance will nourish the body and help bring it into balance, without creating a commanding dependency. With cooked food, the dependency may be triggered more by visual and olfactory associations than by physiological reactions. However, " comfort " food definitely has its roots in psychological or physiological reactions. It comes from the fallacy that food has the ability to provide " comfort " when we are stressed. Eric, I think you covered it pretty thoroughly. Ron Koenig RawSeattle , " ericscottfarris " <EricScottFarris@Y...> wrote: > OK, here's another subject to arouse some discussion. In particular, > the main physical elements of any addiction in general. I'll start > with this message, containing my own thoughts; then I'd like to hear > others'. > > I've heard many times about how this or that is " addictive " . The > obvious case is with hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, nicotine-- oops, > did I just include a legal drug in the same group as illegal ones? ;- > ) Then there are the other substances with different gradations of > social stigma, like marijuana, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, and the one > we're all (at some stage of) swaring off: cooked " food " . When I've > heard it said that all these substances are " addictive " , many times I > have reflected, " Come to think of it, what is it that's common to all > of them that makes them physically and/or > psychologically 'addictive'? What is the essential nature of > addiction in general? " > > In this thought process, I've first asked myself, what does the > word " addiction " literally mean? Like many English words, it's > derived from Latin. The " ad- " prefix is a Latin preposition and > prefix that basically means " toward " . The " dict " stem is from a > common Latin verb meaning (at its most basic level) " say " , " indicate > with words " (that English word right there, " indicate " , has another > form of this Latin stem in it yet again). The Latin verb also had a > meaning of " appoint " or " command " connected to it, besides just the > basic meaning of " say " . The other English > words " dictate " , " dictation " , and " dictator " , also with this Latin > stem in them, have more to do with this part of the meaning. This is > where the common meaning of our English word " addiction " most > relates. Having thus pieced out the Latin parts, I could see how the > English verb " addict " 's subparts, when put together, literally > means " be commanded toward " . An " addict " is literally " commanded > toward " something; " addiction " is the state of " being commanded > toward " . OK, so that's the literal part of " addiction " . > > But where/how does any addiction in general arise, how does it come > to exist in the first place? What is it about some substance that > *makes* it " addictive " ? > > I've been dissatisfied in looking for any explanation of what I'm > talking about here, in the common discussion among raw foodist > circles. Everyone says cooked " food " is " addictive " , and may show or > point out the *final effects* of the addictiveness as it shows up in > *lifestyle*, like Victoria Boutenko did pretty well in that great > talk she led, on her last visit here. These discussions have been > great at showing that there *is* addiction, the symptoms and signs of > addiction. But what I can't recall anyone giving a more in-depth > treatment on, and what I've wanted to see and hear more throwing > around of ideas about, is the really basic reasons *WHY*. How > come/WHY is cooked " food " addictive? Incidentally, many of us would > also say there are many " raw " " foods " that are addictive too. > > So my bottom line question was, what *makes* something addictive? > WHY is it addictive? What is it that cooked " food " has in common > with drugs that makes them all addictive? > > Well, I have had (and still have, of course) some thoughts about > this, and I'd like to hear yours as well please. So let me share > what little I've heard so far, and what my own brain has come up with. > > I remember posing the question to our dear old friend and true, > original RawSeattle.org webmaster, Christian Blackburn. His response > was pretty interesting and insightful, I thought. He explained that > when we eat cooked, it's unnatural and unhealthy, and our body would > really like to detox from it, and tries its best to do so any chance > it gets. So if we then cut out some cooked, everything cooked, or > even just stop eating (or stop taking the drug, or whatever) for long > enough, our body really gets a better chance to devote more of its > available life energy to an important detoxing process. Then when > our body gets enough into its detoxing, there is some degree of > unpleasant sensations that results, and signals go off, whether we > are fully conscious and aware of them, or even when it's more subtle > and we're not that aware--on some subtle, instinctual, subconscious > level we " just don't feel quite right " . Something in us wants to > stop this unpleasant detoxing, and, from the habits we have acquired > (eating cooked, taking a drug, etc.), we have learned, mostly or > entirely subconsciously (that is, without even having to think about > it, but just act), that consuming/eating/taking whatever it is we are > addicted to, is the best way to stop the detox, and calm down or > obliterate the detox symptoms ( " withdrawal " is one word used for the > detox symptoms). Well, to me, it was cool to hear this reasoning, as > it was a pretty good explanation, one I hadn't thought of myself. > > Or had I? Although at first not so apparent to me, my own thinking, > upon further reflection, *did* provide an explanation that *was* > after all pretty similar to Christian's: > > I remember watching this Bill Moyers series a few years back during > my cooked eating, TV-[hey, at least it was mostly Public TV ;-)] > watching days about the addictive process as it related to hard > drugs. The medical details it went into were the same as were > presentated in another set of video footage of a lecture I saw. Both > treatises demonstrated how certain substances have the effect on > one's body, particularly one's brain, of releasing abnormal levels of > neurochemicals or neurotransmitters. The abnormally high levels of > certain brain chemicals produces a euphoria or " high " . The addiction > part comes about because, after doing whatever drug enough times, the > brain will only release enough of the chemical(s) *after the drug is > taken again*. The addict has basically " trained their brain " to be > used to/accustomed to having the drug sort of do the work of > stimulating the outpouring of the chemistry. Then when there's no > drug, the brain chemistry that characterizes *normal* functioning is > no longer present. The brain per se [ " per se " being Latin for " on > its own " , or " by itself " , or " intrinsically " , and NOT " so to speak " , > as " per se " is so commonly incorrectly used to mean--the Latin > word " se " has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the English word " say " , > other than pronunciation...can you tell yet that I'm a big Latin > snob? ;-)], without the drug, doesn't know anymore (well, hasn't re- > learned again yet) how to do the work it normally *is* able and ready > to do on its own [or, " per se " ;-)]. That's where the " crash " is, > the withdrawal. The necessary brain chemistry is depleted. Just to > get enough of the brain chemistry back again to just feel OK--not > even to get " high " anymore--the addict's brain now requires the > taking of the drug again--usually more and more of it as time > progresses (the " tolerance " effect)--and the addiction has been set > in place. > > How does this scenario relate to eating cooked though? Well, I > learned from the book " Food Enzymes: The Missing Link To Radiant > Health " by Humbart Santillo, that a similar process happens when one > eats cooked. Our bodies respond by doing a massive outpour of > digestive enzymes. Our digestive (and other) organs and glands > actually eventually go into hypertrophy (overgrowth) over time, to > sustain the massive production levels. We all know that our immune > system kicks into overdrive too, with the massive outpour of white > blood cells [the good ol' " leukocytosis " process--parsing the *Greek* > this time, leuko- = " white " , cyt- = " cell " , -osis = see > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-osis ; yeah, I'm a Greek > snob too ;-)]. Just like with taking drugs, our bodies do the best > they know with what they're given, and end up out of balance from > these massive outpourings (of brain chemicals, digestive juices, > white blood cells, or whatever). By subjecting the body to unnatural > conditions, the body will do its best to try to go back to normal. > Its attempts to get back to normal are not normal/natural in > themselves though, except in the sense that they are a normal > response *when an abnormal stimulus (cooked " food " , drugs, whatever) > is introduced*. They come about only in response to something > unnatural in the first place. The body will never get back to > normal/natural until we let it, by stopping the original unnatural > situation (eating cooked, taking drugs, whatever). Until we do so, > we've conditioned ourselves to only feel OK when we produce these > high levels of digestive juices, hormones, brain chemicals, the list > goes on. We have to keep up the addictive habit in order to even > feel right. We've become addicted. > > So that's the (or, " an " ) answer/logic I came up with for *why* > cooked " food " is " addictive " . As I see it, it's similar to > Christian's explanation: when we go through the withdrawal, we > subconsciously have learned that the best way we > instinctively/subconsciously know to stop the withdrawal (detox), and > to feel OK again, is to take in the problem substance, and continue > the vicious cycle. (Hey, yet another side note here--the > word " vicious " , looking at Latin roots again, has the same stem as > the word " vice " ...interesting, no?) It was cool how both his > explanation and mine fit together and all made kind of the same sense. > > Well, hopefully this was all interesting and instructive. It would > be my desire to see more such discussion about the idea. So please, > carry on with this, " keep the ball rolling " , K? " Yes, " you > say? " Thanks, " I say. :-) > > Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Eric, Excellent discussion on addiction. I'd like to ask, then, what is non-addictive behavior? Something reinforces us in maintaining that equilibrium too. Nickolas Hein Morgantown WV - ericscottfarris RawSeattle Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:35 AM [RawSeattle] Addiction OK, here's another subject to arouse some discussion. In particular, the main physical elements of any addiction in general. I'll start with this message, containing my own thoughts; then I'd like to hear others'. I've heard many times about how this or that is " addictive " . The obvious case is with hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, nicotine--oops, did I just include a legal drug in the same group as illegal ones? ;- ) Then there are the other substances with different gradations of social stigma, like marijuana, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, and the one we're all (at some stage of) swaring off: cooked " food " . When I've heard it said that all these substances are " addictive " , many times I have reflected, " Come to think of it, what is it that's common to all of them that makes them physically and/or psychologically 'addictive'? What is the essential nature of addiction in general? " In this thought process, I've first asked myself, what does the word " addiction " literally mean? Like many English words, it's derived from Latin. The " ad- " prefix is a Latin preposition and prefix that basically means " toward " . The " dict " stem is from a common Latin verb meaning (at its most basic level) " say " , " indicate with words " (that English word right there, " indicate " , has another form of this Latin stem in it yet again). The Latin verb also had a meaning of " appoint " or " command " connected to it, besides just the basic meaning of " say " . The other English words " dictate " , " dictation " , and " dictator " , also with this Latin stem in them, have more to do with this part of the meaning. This is where the common meaning of our English word " addiction " most relates. Having thus pieced out the Latin parts, I could see how the English verb " addict " 's subparts, when put together, literally means " be commanded toward " . An " addict " is literally " commanded toward " something; " addiction " is the state of " being commanded toward " . OK, so that's the literal part of " addiction " . But where/how does any addiction in general arise, how does it come to exist in the first place? What is it about some substance that *makes* it " addictive " ? I've been dissatisfied in looking for any explanation of what I'm talking about here, in the common discussion among raw foodist circles. Everyone says cooked " food " is " addictive " , and may show or point out the *final effects* of the addictiveness as it shows up in *lifestyle*, like Victoria Boutenko did pretty well in that great talk she led, on her last visit here. These discussions have been great at showing that there *is* addiction, the symptoms and signs of addiction. But what I can't recall anyone giving a more in-depth treatment on, and what I've wanted to see and hear more throwing around of ideas about, is the really basic reasons *WHY*. How come/WHY is cooked " food " addictive? Incidentally, many of us would also say there are many " raw " " foods " that are addictive too. So my bottom line question was, what *makes* something addictive? WHY is it addictive? What is it that cooked " food " has in common with drugs that makes them all addictive? Well, I have had (and still have, of course) some thoughts about this, and I'd like to hear yours as well please. So let me share what little I've heard so far, and what my own brain has come up with. I remember posing the question to our dear old friend and true, original RawSeattle.org webmaster, Christian Blackburn. His response was pretty interesting and insightful, I thought. He explained that when we eat cooked, it's unnatural and unhealthy, and our body would really like to detox from it, and tries its best to do so any chance it gets. So if we then cut out some cooked, everything cooked, or even just stop eating (or stop taking the drug, or whatever) for long enough, our body really gets a better chance to devote more of its available life energy to an important detoxing process. Then when our body gets enough into its detoxing, there is some degree of unpleasant sensations that results, and signals go off, whether we are fully conscious and aware of them, or even when it's more subtle and we're not that aware--on some subtle, instinctual, subconscious level we " just don't feel quite right " . Something in us wants to stop this unpleasant detoxing, and, from the habits we have acquired (eating cooked, taking a drug, etc.), we have learned, mostly or entirely subconsciously (that is, without even having to think about it, but just act), that consuming/eating/taking whatever it is we are addicted to, is the best way to stop the detox, and calm down or obliterate the detox symptoms ( " withdrawal " is one word used for the detox symptoms). Well, to me, it was cool to hear this reasoning, as it was a pretty good explanation, one I hadn't thought of myself. Or had I? Although at first not so apparent to me, my own thinking, upon further reflection, *did* provide an explanation that *was* after all pretty similar to Christian's: I remember watching this Bill Moyers series a few years back during my cooked eating, TV-[hey, at least it was mostly Public TV ;-)] watching days about the addictive process as it related to hard drugs. The medical details it went into were the same as were presentated in another set of video footage of a lecture I saw. Both treatises demonstrated how certain substances have the effect on one's body, particularly one's brain, of releasing abnormal levels of neurochemicals or neurotransmitters. The abnormally high levels of certain brain chemicals produces a euphoria or " high " . The addiction part comes about because, after doing whatever drug enough times, the brain will only release enough of the chemical(s) *after the drug is taken again*. The addict has basically " trained their brain " to be used to/accustomed to having the drug sort of do the work of stimulating the outpouring of the chemistry. Then when there's no drug, the brain chemistry that characterizes *normal* functioning is no longer present. The brain per se [ " per se " being Latin for " on its own " , or " by itself " , or " intrinsically " , and NOT " so to speak " , as " per se " is so commonly incorrectly used to mean--the Latin word " se " has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the English word " say " , other than pronunciation...can you tell yet that I'm a big Latin snob? ;-)], without the drug, doesn't know anymore (well, hasn't re- learned again yet) how to do the work it normally *is* able and ready to do on its own [or, " per se " ;-)]. That's where the " crash " is, the withdrawal. The necessary brain chemistry is depleted. Just to get enough of the brain chemistry back again to just feel OK--not even to get " high " anymore--the addict's brain now requires the taking of the drug again--usually more and more of it as time progresses (the " tolerance " effect)--and the addiction has been set in place. How does this scenario relate to eating cooked though? Well, I learned from the book " Food Enzymes: The Missing Link To Radiant Health " by Humbart Santillo, that a similar process happens when one eats cooked. Our bodies respond by doing a massive outpour of digestive enzymes. Our digestive (and other) organs and glands actually eventually go into hypertrophy (overgrowth) over time, to sustain the massive production levels. We all know that our immune system kicks into overdrive too, with the massive outpour of white blood cells [the good ol' " leukocytosis " process--parsing the *Greek* this time, leuko- = " white " , cyt- = " cell " , -osis = see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-osis ; yeah, I'm a Greek snob too ;-)]. Just like with taking drugs, our bodies do the best they know with what they're given, and end up out of balance from these massive outpourings (of brain chemicals, digestive juices, white blood cells, or whatever). By subjecting the body to unnatural conditions, the body will do its best to try to go back to normal. Its attempts to get back to normal are not normal/natural in themselves though, except in the sense that they are a normal response *when an abnormal stimulus (cooked " food " , drugs, whatever) is introduced*. They come about only in response to something unnatural in the first place. The body will never get back to normal/natural until we let it, by stopping the original unnatural situation (eating cooked, taking drugs, whatever). Until we do so, we've conditioned ourselves to only feel OK when we produce these high levels of digestive juices, hormones, brain chemicals, the list goes on. We have to keep up the addictive habit in order to even feel right. We've become addicted. So that's the (or, " an " ) answer/logic I came up with for *why* cooked " food " is " addictive " . As I see it, it's similar to Christian's explanation: when we go through the withdrawal, we subconsciously have learned that the best way we instinctively/subconsciously know to stop the withdrawal (detox), and to feel OK again, is to take in the problem substance, and continue the vicious cycle. (Hey, yet another side note here--the word " vicious " , looking at Latin roots again, has the same stem as the word " vice " ...interesting, no?) It was cool how both his explanation and mine fit together and all made kind of the same sense. Well, hopefully this was all interesting and instructive. It would be my desire to see more such discussion about the idea. So please, carry on with this, " keep the ball rolling " , K? " Yes, " you say? " Thanks, " I say. :-) Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Hi Eric, Very thought provoking questions. What causes addiction and what is it that all addictions have in common? Christian’s explanation reveals a better understanding of what addiction is than most people have. Since addiction is cyclical, though, where does it begin -- with the first taste of an “addictive” substance, or the discomfort that eventually follows, or when we partake again to cover up the discomfort? This question is important because it tells us something about all addictions. I think the common denominator goes back to our motive for taking that first 'taste'. Anything that is done initially to satisfy an unmet emotional need, and thereafter habitually in response to that same uncomfortable stimulus, could be classified as an addiction. Any consumable substance can be addictive, as can the simple act of eating, or any activity. To break an addiction, we need to experience our bad feelings without attempting to distract ourselves from them, and we need to do this repeatedly until the habituated pattern is broken. That's one reason why going raw is difficult, because we are forced to feel our feelings instead of escaping from them. Everybody in our culture is addicted to food, even (I daresay) most raw fooders. The difference with raw fooders is that at least we eat foods that are easily digested, which decreases the burden of waste that is produced when food is eaten in the absence of real hunger. We have to learn to eat strictly to satisfy legitimate hunger if we want to be truly healthy. Asking our bodies to digest food just because we happen to be lonely or bored is a recipe for disease. In fact, we should never eat when we're worried, stressed or sad, because these feelings produce hormones that actually interfere with digestion. One exercise I've done to change the habit I have of eating to cover up bad feelings is to change my thoughts when those feelings arise. When my stomach growls, for example, instead of thinking " I'm hungry " , I think, " I'm cleansing and my stomach needs rest " . (The last thing a growling stomach needs is more work to do.) You can do this with any uncomfortable feeling that normally makes you want to eat. We form addictions very early in life, because that’s when our bad feelings begin. To figure out why we have bad feelings, we only have to look at how we’re treated from the day we are born. We’re battered, traumatized, inoculated, mutilated, isolated, deprived of the one thing that we desire most (the proximity of our mothers) and in some cases even the thing we desire second most (natural food). All of this produces feelings of loss, disconnectedness, fear, insecurity, etc., that never get resolved in most cases. It’s not hard to see why everyone in our culture is addicted to something or other. Nora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.