Feel better now

My ride to (and from) Mt. Vernon this morning was a near-perfect experience. The trail is always beautiful, but especially so this time of year, and the weather couldn't be more pleasant. I'm generally disappointed when something--usually weather or exhaustion--gets in the way of my weekly ride. There's nothing I enjoy more than being on that bike, on that trail, enjoying the views and the fresh air. So it surprises me when my commitment to the ride is seen as some sort of sacrifice or show of discipline. If I saw it as something I had to do, or had better do, I probably couldn't bring myself to do it.

F. had framed it that way when we first started spending weekends together, while we were still amused by our differences/before we understood that they were insurmountable: there you are, bettering yourself, while I'm sleeping in. Shrug. To the extent that I am bettering myself, it's incidental: I'm bettering myself in the sense that I'm doing something that makes me happy and feeds my soul; I'm exposing myself to fresh air, beauty, and activity. As for his sleeping in, that just meant that I could take my time with the bike ride; I didn't care what he did. But the point is, it's not the lofty, long-term benefits of exercise, nor a sense of duty that gets my butt out of bed and onto the trail in the morning; it's the drive to feel better now. See my post about the immediate benefits of exercise from a month or so ago.

The same goes with food: I don't eschew junk food because I think it'll hurt me in the long run (in fact, I'm a big believer in moderation). I just don't care for it, usually, because it will make me feel like crap then and there.

It was in this context that I was re-pondering the article that so frustrated me on Thursday. I mean, you know my position: I'm the first to roll my eyes at men who won't admit their preference for thinner women is physical, who claim that it's about "self-control." I call BS on those guys, and I wholeheartedly agree that they're hurting themselves more than the non-emaciated women they dismiss. But I'm a stickler for logic (sorry, occupational hazard) and the article's logic mostly failed. Of course there are different standards for "skinny" people's eating habits; there are also different standards for millionaires' shopping habits. This is why these things are personal: you have to do what's right for your circumstances.

But it's not just the logical inconsistencies that so bother me in the article: it's the incredibly defeating idea that one's health is out of one's hands. Poverty and genetics may correlate with obesity, but they're not deterministic, and the idea that either is, only keeps people obese. So does the peer pressure that hits when one person within a peer or family group actually tries to take control of one's health. Why do you think vegans so freak people out by our very existence? The idea that we have agency over what we consume is threatening to people who justify their habits by denying that agency. Please be sure that I'm not suggesting that vegans threaten all non-vegans, or that veganism is right for everyone, etc. What I am saying is that vegans (and others--paleo eaters, vegetarians, etc.) threaten people who want to pretend that their nutrition is out of their hands. I wouldn't be surprised if this is why it's such a threat to my mom.

Look: if you're happy as you are, however that is, that's great. Especially because you're not the one(s) giving me crap for the way I eat. But if you're unhappy, don't blame your genes, or anything else. Blame poverty only if you're so poor that you can't afford a bag of lentils. You're right that it's not about will power in the small sense: the will power to resist an unhealthy meal, or to exercise even though you don't feel like it. I'm a big believer in making sure you're getting enough food and making sure that your food tastes good, and in listening to your body. It's about will power in the big sense: making the decision to own your health.