In the Feeling Good Handbook, author David Burns describes temptations to do maladaptive things such as using drugs and alcohol as well as binge eating as a means of regulating one's moods and emotions.
Compulsive eaters are like drug addicts in a sense, constantly seeking a momentary refuge and repreive in habit.
A common habit that people with poor eating habits have (myself included) is to justify their malaptive behavior by using one of the following reasonings.
The first rationalization is called "fortune-telling".
By fortune telling, a person tells himself that in eating an extra slice of pizza or snacking when he is not hungry, he will bring some happiness into his life. It seems so extreme, doesn't it? But think about it for a moment. There is truth to it. I remember binge eating when I lived at my folk's house two years ago. It would be late at night and there was all the food I could imagine eating. I would head to the cupboard to have some cereal or to the fridge for some cheese and salsa to go with my nachos. I was never full, either. I went from a managable 190 pounds to over 200 in six months. I now weigh even more. But in my rush to chomp, chew and bite on something edible, was I missing something in how I felt? I think so. At the time--and I suppose all the time that I head out for a late night snack--I'm anxious, sleepless or preoccupied with something. I nearly always feel rushed. What about you?
The second rationalization is called a "should statement".
A double edged sword of containing ones eating is to prohibit certain foods. When we say, "I wont eat anymore extreme nachos, ever again. I'll be dead and never have eaten another," we're simply making the problem worse. It's an insincere notion to say we wont or can't have another thing that we enjoy. Extreme nachos aren't the problem, afterall. We're the problem. It's the same as the gun debate is. Guns don't shoot people on the street. It's the people who own the guns and don't use them the right way. By making a food forbidden, same as a sex act, it becomes more desirable and our appetite for it harder to sate.
The third rationalization is called "emotional reasoning".
The illusion of any compulsive behavior is that it will make you feel good. If a behavior is compulsive that means it is one that requires repetition, redoing and constant revisiting. If a gambler was truly happy by gambling, wouldn't he only gamble once or twice? He wouldn't need thirty scratch off lottery tickets in one day. The same goes for eating. I've been in a gas station before to pay for the tank of fuel I've pumped and there on display is a Reese's snack. I love peanut butter and chocolate (wow, I sound like a woman) and always will and have every right to. But I'll have eaten or wont have the opportunity to exercise off the 250 calories, carbohydrates and saturated fats contained within the food. Nevertheless, I'll make the rationalization, right there at the register that I'll feel better, I deserve it, and to deny myself the snack is to be cruel to my psyche and my soul. Although it seems hard to acknowledge, the flip side is that being fit and in good shape, attractive and virile is treating oneself well. When I lose the 30 pounds that I've been trying to lose, I'll feel better about myself in a way that compulsive eating never would allow me to. And then the occassional bar will likely be more enjoyable.
Last night, I found myself wanting pizza late at night. Thankfully, I avoided it, though two hours later I had a mild snack on nacho chips. I was able to catch myself before I implied the first or third rationalizations. I've tried the same thing this morning with some success.
I suppose eating is an emotive thing the way that gambling and sex are. But we tend to divorce them from our our psyches and treat them as isolated features of our existence.
But how to deal with these unexamined thoughts? I hope that Burns book will explain more. I'm not too far in. There's a long way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment