(((((FJ)))))

And healthism is a huge problem in my culture. The pursuit of health is what the pursuit of sinlessness used to be.

fillyjonk, I bet you don’t have diabetes. But if you do (speaking as someone who has been diagnosed type 2 for ten years) it’s not the end of the world. A lot of what people think they know about diabetes is based on way outdated notions from before there were so many good ways of managing it.

I’ve mentioned this before, and keep meaning to write a whole post about it, but my mom controlled her diabetes with diet for over 10 years. When the doctor told her she’d have to start taking medication — HALF a pill — she lost it, felt like the world’s biggest failure, cried her head off. Asked the doctor WHY she had to take medication, when she was so “good” about food.

Doc: Your pancreas got 10 years older.

There’s only so much you can ever manage, hon.

To be fair to the boyfriend, he just said, and I quote, “possible health problems are not a moral failing even if society likes to make it that way for the fatties.” Which is awesome.

Ahem, hijack.

Such a perfect illustration of the quote above!

Thinking further on this, I actually think that HAES would be the more “moral” way to go, if there is any kind of validity to the idea that taking care of your body is pleasing to God, since he made it and entrusted you with it. Which idea would of course be heavily dependent on your belief system anyway. But HAES is both respectful of your body and an active attempt to nourish it with what it needs, as well as an attempt to fuel it so it can accomplish various goals that you might have, which might include feeling good enough to get on with your day and volunteer or otherwise do good in the world. Whereas dieting is about what you can’t have and about deprivation, and also forces most people to turn inward and become obsessed with their food intake and exercise minutes. It seems like a smaller way to live, whether or not it is really a “moral” issue.

Kate, I think you are exactly right that viewing health as a moral imperative gives people room for some “me-time” without having to acknowledge it as such.

I never until recently (based on discussions on this blog) pondered the concept that “health” is a mutable concept that is different for everybody. It sounds so obvious written out like that, but still I was striving for some kind of vague ideal that I guess I thought was the same for everybody. I mean, I don’t remember feeling like everyone should have to meet the “health criteria” I sort of subconsciously set out for myself when I started exercising (with respect to lower heart rate, blood pressure, etc.), but I just assumed all healthy people did fall within these “acceptable” ranges and never thought about it much further than that. Now that seems pretty simplistic. Huh.

Oh, hell yeah. (I didn’t mean to be dismissive of the people I described in my previous comment, btw.)

Intuitive eating is the biggest mindfuck ever for me. I’m getting better at it, and recognizing that it really works — what I crave usually IS what I need — but it is so hard to determine what I want to eat just by asking myself what I want to eat — not intellectualizing it, and trying to decide what’s good/bad to eat.

I’m farther ahead with exercise, because yoga is wonderful for this kind of thing; the thing you learn over and over is that doing it “well” means listening to your body, period. If you want to push yourself too hard or try to measure your success by external factors, a good teacher will be all over your ass, reminding you that it is all about YOU. No pain doesn’t mean no gain; it means you’re doing it right. There’s no race and no finish line. It’s just the polar opposite of working out in the way we’re usually trained to.

Problem is, that’s exactly why a lot of type-A people can’t fucking stand yoga. :)