Today, one in three humans on this planet are overweight. Two billion people overconsume the products of an agro-industry that continues to abuse natural environments. The obesity pandemic is not just a public health problem, it is also a major ecological problem. The government is totally helpless in the face of the magnitude of this phenomenon. Their attempts to regulate food products come up against powerful economic interests. As for preventive actions, they have always proved to be ineffective. Medicine is just as helpless.
It confines itself to recommending diets or, for extreme cases, gastric surgery. Throughout the 20th century, weight loss diets have followed the evolution of scientific knowledge. This is followed by salt-free diets and then those low in fat until sugars are called into question. Hypo-carbohydrate diets then appeared. Then we realized that there were good and bad fats. It was the fashion for omega3. We have also seen the emergence of vitamin diets, others in the form of food supplements based on extracts of this or that plant reputed to contain enzymes that “eat fat” such as pineapple capsules. Finally, the fashion of the moment is high protein diets. All of these diets work … one time, one summer. Untenable over time, the pounds are coming back. It’s the yoyo effect. Studies have shown that 95% of people who have lost weight regain their original weight five years later and many have even exceeded it. The progress made in recent decades in neurology and the studies carried out on eating behaviors make it possible today to better understand the reasons for the almost systematic failure of diets. It is ultimately the constraints that the eater imposes on himself that are the problem. Whether they are the result of a medical prescription, a trendy diet or whether it is religious or philosophical beliefs or advice gleaned from the media or from relatives, each time the mind intervenes as a power regulator, it produces the opposite effect to that sought. The medical world, and in particular nutritionists, are beginning to recognize the importance of food sensations by discovering that they are the key to regulating food intake.
What is cognitive restriction?
Nutritionists have given these dietary constraints a name: cognitive restriction. They identified four levels. The first is a proactive attitude. The eater decides to no longer listen to his eating sensations which he judges unreliable. There are more or less strict rules that dictate what to eat in what quantity and when. The second level intervenes very quickly when mental control disrupts eating sensations. The eater wants a food, let’s say at this stage that he has eating sensations that push him towards this food. But it is one of the prohibited foods. The eater turns away and compensates by over-consuming other foods that are allowed. This overconsumption of authorized foods masks the food sensations which eventually disappear. This is the third level. Without deviating from its principles, the eater eats more and more, without being able to stop. He is always hungry or hungry and no longer feels full. Mind control is still there but it is more and more difficult to live. Each difference in diet is experienced as a failure that the eater tries to compensate for, not by going on a diet, but also by overconsuming authorized foods. The food sensations have disappeared. The eater is a sad eater who begins to realize the side effects of his diet: weight gain, frustrations, guilt, feeling of being in constant war with oneself. A deep discomfort sets in. The last level occurs when the eater decides to swing everything. It is the total loss of control aggravated by the lack of eating sensations, which are replaced by emotional sensations. The desire to eat is not dictated by sensations but by emotions. We eat because we are tired, or depressed, or to get through anger or a strong emotion. From being overweight, the eater goes to the obese stage. After a few years health problems settle. Cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc. Of course these different levels are a bit theoretical. In reality, things are more nuanced, in particular with regard to the intrusion of emotions into eating behavior which can intervene from the first level.
The causes of obesity are not what we believe
Many statistical or medical studies give contradictory results on the real causes of obesity. No causal link could be established with certainty and indisputable between weight gain and the level of lipids, carbohydrates or proteins in the diet. However, it seems that it is the energy load, that is to say the amount of calories that is the most determining in gaining weight. One gram of fat provides 9 calories, while one gram of carbohydrate or protein provides 4. In his book “Losing weight without diet”, doctor Jean-Philippe Zermati takes the example of two nutritionists, one famous, the another unknown. The first, Morgan Spurlock, made himself known through the film "Super size me", based on his eating experience. To denounce junk food, he has eaten a lot of fast food. In one month, he gained 11 kg, damaged his liver and increased his cholesterol by 0.65 g per liter of blood … on a diet of 5000 calories per day. The other nutritionist is Mark Haub, professor of nutrition at the University of Kansas. He had the same experience, that is to say eating only "junk food" but in moderation. Limited to 1,800 calories a day, he lost 12 pounds in ten weeks.
Why do so many people have cognitive restriction?
If caloric moderation seems to be a way to fight against overweight, you might think that it is enough to do like Mark Haub, that is to say eat everything but moderately. This is what some nutritionists like Dr. Cohen suggest. Unfortunately, as with all diets, mind control has perverse effects that go against the one sought. The new school of nutrition that is emerging is trying to counter this paradox by emphasizing re-education of eating behavior. Obese or overweight people suffer from a loss of their sensory control, a loss that no mental control can replace. On a theoretical level, this school tends to reduce food intake to a simple question of calorie intake which should be controlled, not by the mind but by listening to bodily sensations. The promoters of this school cite the abundance and diversity of the modern food supply as the cause of this loss of control. This hypothesis seems contradictory to say the least, according to which eating sensations are capable of regulating food intake. It is clear that this capacity is largely faulted. Numerous historical, ethnological, and even observations of animal behavior, however, show that abundance does not usually imply a deterioration in food regulation capacities. The lion in the savannah has as many claws, gazelles, antelopes, onyx and other animals as delicious food. However, when it is full, it leaves its prey in peace. To invoke cultural causes that predispose to the perverse effects of cognitive control is no more convincing as the phenomenon is global. A singular fact should, however, draw attention. Around the world, the obesity epidemic is emerging simultaneously with a westernization of food. This simple observation amounts to suspecting feeding. This is a weakness of this approach. Considering that any form of mental control is harmful, she refuses to question food. But is it possible to regulate one's diet with “junk food”? If obesity appears systematically in populations whose eating habits change radically, this means that these habits are not equivalent from the point of view of the ability of individuals to regulate their diet. The regulatory mechanisms are numerous and complex. The digestive system analyzes the chemical composition of food with precision, deduces the nutrients it can get from it and, depending on the body's needs, sends signals of pleasure or displeasure. The eater is not aware of all of this, except pleasant or unpleasant sensations. This is essentially what Dr. Zermati writes in his book. But what he doesn’t say and must bear in mind is that all of these mechanisms are the result of millions of years of evolution. They were developed and developed in a prehistoric context, even before the invention of cooking food. The more we move away from the native conditions of these mechanisms, the more vague and approximate they are. To the point of becoming inaudible and ineffective with modern artificial and industrial food.
The causes of obesity are not what we believe
Many statistical or medical studies give contradictory results on the real causes of obesity. No causal link could be established with certainty and indisputable between weight gain and the level of lipids, carbohydrates or proteins in the diet. However, it seems that it is the energy load, that is to say the amount of calories that is the most determining in gaining weight. One gram of fat provides 9 calories, while one gram of carbohydrate or protein provides 4. In his book “Losing weight without diet”, doctor Jean-Philippe Zermati takes the example of two nutritionists, one famous, the another unknown. The first, Morgan Spurlock, made himself known through the film "Super size me", based on his eating experience. To denounce junk food, he has eaten a lot of fast food. In one month, he gained 11 kg, damaged his liver and increased his cholesterol by 0.65 g per liter of blood … on a diet of 5000 calories per day. The other nutritionist is Mark Haub, professor of nutrition at the University of Kansas. He had the same experience, that is to say eating only "junk food" but in moderation. Limited to 1,800 calories a day, he lost 12 pounds in ten weeks.
Why do so many people have cognitive restriction?
If caloric moderation seems to be a way to fight against overweight, you might think that it is enough to do like Mark Haub, that is to say eat everything but moderately. This is what some nutritionists like Dr. Cohen suggest. Unfortunately, as with all diets, mind control has perverse effects that go against the one sought. The new school of nutrition that is emerging is trying to counter this paradox by emphasizing re-education of eating behavior. Obese or overweight people suffer from a loss of their sensory control, a loss that no mental control can replace. On a theoretical level, this school tends to reduce food intake to a simple question of calorie intake which should be controlled, not by the mind but by listening to bodily sensations. The promoters of this school cite the abundance and diversity of the modern food supply as the cause of this loss of control. This hypothesis seems contradictory to say the least, according to which eating sensations are capable of regulating food intake. It is clear that this capacity is largely faulted. Numerous historical, ethnological, and even observations of animal behavior, however, show that abundance does not usually imply a deterioration in food regulation capacities. The lion in the savannah has as many claws, gazelles, antelopes, onyx and other animals as delicious food. However, when it is full, it leaves its prey in peace. To invoke cultural causes that predispose to the perverse effects of cognitive control is no more convincing as the phenomenon is global. A singular fact should, however, draw attention. Around the world, the obesity epidemic is emerging simultaneously with a westernization of food. This simple observation amounts to suspecting feeding. This is a weakness of this approach. Considering that any form of mental control is harmful, she refuses to question food. But is it possible to regulate one's diet with “junk food”? If obesity appears systematically in populations whose eating habits change radically, this means that these habits are not equivalent from the point of view of the ability of individuals to regulate their diet. The regulatory mechanisms are numerous and complex. The digestive system analyzes the chemical composition of food with precision, deduces the nutrients it can get from it and, depending on the body's needs, sends signals of pleasure or displeasure. The eater is not aware of all of this, except pleasant or unpleasant sensations. This is essentially what Dr. Zermati writes in his book. But what he doesn’t say and must bear in mind is that all of these mechanisms are the result of millions of years of evolution. They were developed and developed in a prehistoric context, even before the invention of cooking food. The more we move away from the native conditions of these mechanisms, the more vague and approximate they are. To the point of becoming inaudible and ineffective with modern artificial and industrial food.