philosophy of appetizers

[jts]

Some restaurants have appetizers. What is an appetizer?

definition: "A small dish of food or a drink taken before a meal to stimulate one's appetite."

I'm not sure what that means. Shelton makes a distinction between appetite and hunger, appetite being pathology. Perhaps in this definition, appetite means hunger.

I tend to judge foods and meals by hunger satisfaction. If I am hungrier after I finish eating a food than I was when I began eating the food, I figure something is wrong. Maybe something is wrong with the food. Maybe something is wrong with my ability to digest the food. If the food is at fault, maybe it has a low nutrient over calorie ratio, causing a nutrition deficiency, causing hunger. Maybe it has an excess of something, causing a nutritional imbalance, causing hunger. Whatever. Something is wrong. Food is not supposed to produce hunger. Food is supposed to produce hunger satisfaction. So what's with appetizers?

I understand the restaurant's point of view. They want you to eat more so they make more money. But I have a different point of view. (I wouldn't touch restaurant food with a ten foot pole, for multiple reasons.)

[Xray]

- double post deleted by me -

[Xray]

I'm not sure what that means. Shelton makes a distinction between appetite and hunger, appetite being pathology. Perhaps in this definition, appetite means hunger.

Since we are biologically programmed to savor our food, there is no reason to label appetite as pathological.

I tend to judge foods and meals by hunger satisfaction.

When hungry, I always try to eat food which I also have an appetite for. I avoid snacking when I'm not hungry though.

If I am hungrier after I finish eating a food than I was when I began eating the food, I figure something is wrong.

If for example you eat food with a high glycemic index, you can quickly feel hungry again.

[caroljane]

Some restaurants have appetizers. What is an appetizer?

definition: "A small dish of food or a drink taken before a meal to stimulate one's appetite."

I'm not sure what that means. Shelton makes a distinction between appetite and hunger, appetite being pathology. Perhaps in this definition, appetite means hunger.

I tend to judge foods and meals by hunger satisfaction. If I am hungrier after I finish eating a food than I was when I began eating the food, I figure something is wrong. Maybe something is wrong with the food. Maybe something is wrong with my ability to digest the food. If the food is at fault, maybe it has a low nutrient over calorie ratio, causing a nutrition deficiency, causing hunger. Maybe it has an excess of something, causing a nutritional imbalance, causing hunger. Whatever. Something is wrong. Food is not supposed to produce hunger. Food is supposed to produce hunger satisfaction. So what's with appetizers?

I understand the restaurant's point of view. They want you to eat more so they make more money. But I have a different point of view. (I wouldn't touch restaurant food with a ten foot pole, for multiple reasons.)

Some restaurants have appetizers. What is an appetizer?

definition: "A small dish of food or a drink taken before a meal to stimulate one's appetite."

I'm not sure what that means. Shelton makes a distinction between appetite and hunger, appetite being pathology.

If the food is at fault, maybe it has a low nutrient over calorie ratio, causing a nutrition deficiency, causing hunger..

Surely this is backwards? Physiologically it is the calories that satisfy hunger, whatever their nutrition element.

[jts]

Surely this is backwards? Physiologically it is the calories that satisfy hunger, whatever their nutrition element.

Sugar has calories. Does it satisfy hunger? Not unless your hunger is for calories.

[jts]

I'm not sure what that means. Shelton makes a distinction between appetite and hunger, appetite being pathology. Perhaps in this definition, appetite means hunger.

Since we are biologically programmed to savor our food, there is no reason to label appetite as pathological.

I don't know what you mean by appetite but I am quite sure that what you mean is not what Shelton means.

I can find things quickly with my Natural Hygiene Lexicon, which is like the Ayn Rand Lexicon but on a different subject.

http://jtstory.onlin...nh_lexicon.html

Typing 'appetite hunger', 6 books light up. Here are a few quotes from Shelton about appetite and hunger.

But there is a difference between hunger and what is called appetite. Appetite is a counterfeit hunger, a creature of habit and cultivation, and may be due to any one of a number of things; such as the arrival of the habitual meal time, the sight, taste, or smell of food, condiments and seasonings, or even the thought of food. In some diseased states there is an almost constant and insatiable appetite. None of these things can arouse true hunger; for, this comes only when there is an actual need for food.

Appetite is often accompanied by a gnawing or "all gone" sensation in the stomach, or a general sense of weakness; there may even be mental depression. Such symptoms usually belong to the diseased stomach of a glutton and will pass away if their owner will refrain from eating for a few days. They are temporarily relieved by eating and this leads to the idea that it was food that was needed. But such sensations and feelings do not accompany true hunger. In true hunger one is not aware that he has a stomach for this, like thirst, is a mouth and throat sensation. Real hunger arises spontaneously, that is without the agency of some external factor, and is accompanied by a "watering of the mouth" and usually by a conscious desire for some particular food.

The hungry person is able to eat and relish a crust of dry bread; he who has only an appetite must have his food seasoned and spiced before he can enjoy it. Even a gourmand is able to enjoy a hearty meal if there is sufficient seasoning to whip up his jaded appetite and arouse his palsied taste. He would be far better off if he would await the arrival of hunger before eating.

Etc. 34 paragraphs from Shelton in 3 books.

If you think Shelton's criticism of appetite implies that he is opposed to enjoyment of food, I offer this paragraph from Shelton.

The man who "lives to eat" has been roundly condemned so much and so often that he needs no added censure from my pen. I believe that we should enjoy our food. Indeed, I believe that he who derives the greatest possible pleasure and enjoyment from his food, will have better health than the man who does not enjoy his meals. I have no patience with the doctrine of anti-naturalism that prevailed during the Middle Ages, and remnants of which still prevail--that all pleasures are evil. I do not regard a state of chronic misery as man's natural state nor loud groans as evidence of piety.

[caroljane]

Surely this is backwards? Physiologically it is the calories that satisfy hunger, whatever their nutrition element.

Sugar has calories. Does it satisfy hunger? Not unless your hunger is for calories.

I thought you were talking about food, not single ingredients. Most ingredients have calories.

[syrakusos]

Obviously, a range of opinions, attitudes, and assumptions exists on this. I, too, eschew restaurants, though we do go out because my wife enjoys it. I weigh 140 lbs soaking wet because I am not a big eater and like most of us here, apparently, I tend to a more "paleolithic" diet, avoiding processed foods, carbohydrates, etc. ... though I did just have some pretzels (ahem). So, I am not in a position to advocate for the Fun of Eating, but at some level, it is intended to be enjoyable, especially if it is a social event, and not just feeding yourself to keep body and soul together.

That said, an appetizer is a small portion whose tastes exceed the calorie count. Even a shrimp cocktail only delivers enough shrimp to chew on, not to get full on. (Living in Florida, I have used shrimp for bait. No shortage there: eat all you can.) And shrimp cocktail comes with tomato sauce and fresh lemon, again, more flavors with little bulk.

Antipasto is an array of meats and vegetables, all peppered and pickled to offset the pasta of an Italian dinner. Lots of carbs in spaghetti. In antipasto, not so much.

Soups are common appetizers; and no surprise, soup is mostly water. If you order a chowder (made with cream), they only bring you a small cup, not a big bowl.

If food is not your thing, you will not "get" restaurants. Fortunately, my mother liked them. (Never tipped 120 lbs, either: buck and quarter soaking wet. Go figure.) So, I was raised with some understanding of the rituals. And it paid off just recently when a stock broker took to me lunch at a (ahem) "club." Church, however, still surprises me. I never know when they are going to sit, kneel, or stand. Just glad I am not Jewish: too much dancing.

[syrakusos]

(doubled)

[jts]

Surely this is backwards? Physiologically it is the calories that satisfy hunger, whatever their nutrition element.

Sugar has calories. Does it satisfy hunger? Not unless your hunger is for calories.

I thought you were talking about food, not single ingredients. Most ingredients have calories.

I was responding to your statement that it is calories that satisfy hunger whatever their nutrition element. I took that to mean all we need to satisfy hunger is calories. If that is true, then imagine someone eats a small piece of candy (which has little else than calories) every hour or every few minutes or whatever except when sleeping and continues until death. (The slow rate of intake of sugar is to avoid upsetting blood sugar.) A person who did this experiment would eventually get deficient in protein and minerals etc. and die of deficiencies but would never experience hunger. That is how I understand your statement. I have difficulty believing that there is no such thing as hunger for things besides calories.

Perhaps you ate such a good diet all your life that you never experienced any kind of hunger other than hunger for calories. Some people know the experience of holding the fridge door open and trying to figure out what they are hungry for and it isn't calories.

[caroljane]

Yes, you have just identified the difference between appetite and hunger. Hunger is the need for food and appetite is the preference for a particular food to satisfy it,

[jts]

Yes, you have just identified the difference between appetite and hunger. Hunger is the need for food and appetite is the preference for a particular food to satisfy it,

These words have multiple shades of meaning. In Shelton's language, hunger can be for a specific food and appetite is pathology. The symptoms of appetite (as Shelton uses that word) are symptoms of pathology.

[caroljane]

Shelton had a real knack for redefining words, didn't he?

[jts]

Shelton had a real knack for redefining words, didn't he?

1. What are the sensations associated with hunger?

2. What are the sensations associated with appetite?

Recently I did a 22 day fast. That is 22 days living on air and distilled water and sleep and nothing else. No food. Didn't do me any harm. Probably will do it again some day. I still don't know what most people mean by hunger and appetite. I would like to know. Is there such a thing as hunger? Maybe hunger is just in the mind. Maybe I should have gone the full length instead of only 22 days. Hunger is supposed to always happen before danger of starving. What do I gotta do to experience hunger? How would I recognize it if I experienced it?

From Shelton:

The sense of hunger is little understood, perhaps because it has never really been studied. What little attempt has been made by physiologists to study hunger has been made on sick and ailing men and women, with the result that all kinds of morbid sensations have been and continue to be mistaken for hunger, not merely by the layman, but by the expert, who is presumed to know. Science, at present, teaches that hunger is expressed in the stomach, registered especially in the upper part of the stomach, and is manifested by various discomforts. That this is a fallacy will become readily apparent when, and if, they make their investigations upon really healthy subjects.

Certainly if one is ever hungry, he is so at the conclusion of a long fast. Fasting experts insist that hunger is invariably manifested at the conclusion of a long fast, like thirst, in the mouth and throat. We employ this fact as a complete and satisfactory test of the sensations observed during a fast--it reveals whether it is true hunger or morbid sensations. Never under any circumstances following a fast, is hunger felt in the stomach. Always it is manifested in the mouth and throat and always there is an entire absence of distress or of morbid sensations associated with the stomach.

As most men and women, including scientists, declare that hunger is always felt in the stomach, therefore, the "stomach hunger" must be normal, it has been argued that to take the view that normal hunger is manifested in the mouth and throat, we must be prepared to take the position that most men and women have never experienced normal hunger since infancy. This is precisely what we contend. Mr. Carrington says: "most persons have never experienced normal hunger in all their lives! Their appetite and taste are perverted by overfeeding in infancy, and have never had a chance to become normal during the whole course of their lives--owing to the overfeeding being continued ever since." Dewey pointed out that with many people the "evil work" of inducing disease began with the very first meal which was forced upon them by the mother or nurse before they were ready for it. As the forcing process was continued, he says "in due time trouble began," and, thereafter, every outcry of nature was interpreted as a signal of hunger." He says that the meals of the infant "all through the first year of life are regulated by the tunes of crying." Happily, the so-frequent feeding of infants is not as common today as when Dr. Dewey wrote these lines, but it is still all too true that gastric impairment and gastric distress are built in infancy by wrong feeding.

Obviously Shelton is full of %$#@! Can you straighten him out?