I'm in the middle of a controlled experiment where I exposed myself to wheat to see how I react while avoiding any other food I've had a problem with. I want to see how I react. Last time wasn't good but the context of the wheat exposure was such that I don't know if it was the wheat per se.
Now I'm big into reading about the brain and I love meditation. So with this grain exposure I found myself really focusing on my body and mind trying to see how it was different than a Yam Fajita bowl or berries and chicken. What I discovered (N=1) was that my body didn't seem to recognize grain as food. I ate rather a lot of food, mostly of the bready variety and found it quite tasty, quite rewarding but totally unsatisfying. I never got "full", never had any sense that I was eating food at all. It was like the reward pathways were lighting up but but , and sorry to repeat myself, there was no sense of "Food" that went with it.
Has anyone noticed this? Can anyone confirm (if you care to risk it) this sort of disconnect of feeling?
"We have presented evidence the the exorphins will bind to brain opiate receptors as well as to those of peripheral organs. In summary, exorphins may normally reach opiate receptors in the central nervous system and trigger their function."
Yes. I have that disconnect of feeling...best example is pizza. I'm not feeling very present as I'm eating it...don't really taste it all that much but I keep getting another slice--and I'm hungry after(and bloated.) I am aware of the texture I think...and that is very addicting. The taste does not compare though to when I eat a ribeye and I'm concentrating on my food a lot more. I feel like I had meal with the steak where with the pizza I don't. That's probably why I follow it up with chocolate.
This probably happens to everyone with wheat in the form of bread, due I'm sure to the fact the fiber is removed and then it is pulverized and loosely reconstituted, but much less so wheat pasta or with rice. For a given amount of energy, the satiety from sweet potato would exceed rice, which would exceed bread. I don't eat a lot of oatmeal, but I suspect that it would be between rice and and sweet potato. If one is interested in losing body fat, sweet potato would clearly be the better choice. Removing the fibrous bulk of a plant food results in a considerable reduction in satiety. I'd imagine that making some kind of intact, whole wheat gruel like early agriculturalists did would offer much better satiety than bread.
That's how I view it. Of course we can ingest all sorts of things that aren't food that have differing effects on us - that's essentially what all drugs are. More meaningful for me though was to breakdown the idea of food groups. Sure, grains are a food group, but so are trees. I don't hear people complaining that I'm missing out on a whole food group by not eating enough trees. And there's plenty of other types of plant which no-one questions are best left alone. Sure we came up with agriculture and domesticated grains for a reason, but I don't think any of them back then, or even 100 years ago, would eat grains as much as we do now if they had the choice we do.
You, my friend ,are right on target. My brain does not recognize it as food, so it has no craving for it whatsoever, assuming I've eaten real food within four to five hours. Sort of like your"Me Want" answer, just to a different subject and degree.The bodymind is "chilling out" and reochestrating its energy on eating real food and having real relationships. Do you buy this?
I've noticed that high glycemic foods are not as satiating as other foods. Over the last 5 years I've had to retrain my brain to eat them in controlled portions, and to stay active in order to metabolize them. While reading about Neolithic archaeology it's difficult for me to be dismissive of starchy foods and sugars because modern humans have eaten them successfully for 500+ generations. It's only in the last 3-4 generations that they have been available in superabundance for wealthy cultures.