Body Clutter

I kind of hate to write this; there is so much thinking and talking about weight and weight loss and diet, etc., - especially among women of a certain age (mine). But when I was writing about the cost of clutter and its relationship to the low price of cheap mass-produced “stuff,” I couldn’t help thinking about a book I recently read about food.  In The Defense of Food, Michael Pollan suggests that eating with health in mind (not necessarily weight loss and buff bodies) is quite simple: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. His book talks about how nutrition science and big food corporations have led us astray by encouraging people to eat too much cheap, processed food.  He says we should be spending more, consuming less.  The connection is obvious.  We’ve got too much stuff – everywhere.

I thought I had avoided weight loss obsession in my adult life.  Busy with four kids, and concerned about feeding them well, I stayed around my high school weight range, give or take ten pounds.   But over the last few years, the weight crept on.  Ben’s cancer treatment, which at one point caused him to lose 30 pounds, magically transferred that bulk to me.  Treatments done, Ben looks pretty much back to normal.  I am not. Or at least I don't think so. 

I suffered from anorexia as a teen – a food obsession that seems to be passed down through the women of my family. And my fear of passing that on to my daughters or other young women in my life has made me a poor dieter as an adult.  I wanted it to stop with me.  But my revulsion toward dieting hasn’t protected me from feeling guilty about my health as my weight has crept up.  I am out of the healthy weight range, and I would like to get back in. Michael Pollen’s advice really resonates with me as a way back to health by acting healthy – both physically, mentally, and in the world at large.  So.  Starting today I am going to follow his advice and see what happens:

·         Eat fewer processed foods: esp. white flour, white sugar, and corn syrup.

·         Eat three meals a day, no snacks.

·         Eat mostly plants (local of course). 

·         And to keep myself from sliding down the slippery slope of obsession, I will eat a bagel on Sunday and dessert once/week if I want it.

And I will strive not to obsess about the number on the scale, only checking it in a, ahem, detached and curious way.  Maybe the weight that I am now is exactly what I am supposed to be as I approach fifty.  Maybe the extra fluff makes me more cuddly to grandchildren.  Or, being a seventh-generation Floridian, perhaps I have developed a beneficial genetic mutation – a built-in flotation device around my middle parts. Maybe I will stay exactly the same, regardless of what I eat.

Maybe not.  Either way, I believe I’ll feel better about the weight I am if I feel like it’s the result of eating well with health in mind, mine and the food system's.

Comments

[Christina]

Hey,
I am just wondering (COMPLETELY POLITELY)- have we (general pop. not just you) looked at how sustainable it is to have more than 2 kids per family? I am always wondering this, and don't know of any resources/studies that have answers.

Thanks- I like your blog.

[Kelli]

Ai yi yi. Good, hard question. Really no need to spend too much time wondering though. Clearly, if every couple had four kids we would get to a point where population reached an unsustatinable limit. Who knows when. But the hunger and environmental problems we are facing now are not because of overpopulation, but because of inequitable (and unsustainable) food, healthcare, and economic systems. There is enough to go around. But some of us take way too much and some have way too little. Obviously my family takes more than a family with one or two children. But I think we take less than a number of those families in this country.

It's a good question to wonder how folks who have more than their share of children can dare to ask how they can make less of an environmental impact in this world. But of all people, they (I!) need to be asking it.