Ellyn Satter’s website nominally supports “eating what you want as much as you want” but glosses the whole ”… as long as what you want isn’t actually what you want, but instead these other things that you could learn to eat as long as you’ve got rigorously enforced habits.” I should note that Ellyn Satter seems exclusively focused on children, and so a large part of her work seems to be about controlling what they have access to and shaping their desires. It is definitely not advocating limitless access to whatever you want, and is actually very strict about time-based and content-based access to foods.
I guess in the literal sense she advocates ‘eating whatever you like’, but the modified definition of ‘like’ that Ellyn Satter uses is not what I’d consider unrestrained.
Satter and TFN both have beliefs about what people want (after adjustment periods or habit formations periods designed to clear away disorded eating patterns etc.). That doesn’t mean that they don’t really hold the belief that people (adults) should eat whatever they want, as much as they want. If I tell a houseguest they can eat anything they want in the kitchen, I really mean that when I say it, even if I am later shocked to find them eating glass bowls or something and say “I didn’t mean anything in the kitchen.”
Perhaps I can clarify my objections exploding ‘want’ into want/like/approve.
To me it feels like Ellyn Satter takes ‘-want/-like/+approves’ food behaviors then transforms the ‘-like’ and ‘-want’ variables into ‘+like’ and ‘+want’. Comparatively, I feel like TFN takes ‘+want/+like/-approves’ food behaviors then transforms the ‘-approves’ variable into ‘+approves’.
Ellyn Satter’s stuff is all about behavior and desire modification, but everything I’ve read of TFN emphasizes approval more. In both cases you end up with ‘+want/+like/+approves’, which is a better result psychologically. But TFN just gets that, while Satter’s approach gets that and a better result physically as well. I think TFN would disagree of the original quote, while Satter would agree with caveats.
There’s Ellyn Satter, who The Fat Nutritionist links to, if you prefer a cite from a person with many letters after her name. I’m not sure how TFN’s career is relevant to a free blog post she wrote. It doesn’t say “and if you don’t agree, consider buying a course of counseling with me”. I doubt TFN’s credentials are your true rejection. Anyway, the comment I replied to didn’t specify “academic”.
Ellyn Satter’s website nominally supports “eating what you want as much as you want” but glosses the whole ”… as long as what you want isn’t actually what you want, but instead these other things that you could learn to eat as long as you’ve got rigorously enforced habits.” I should note that Ellyn Satter seems exclusively focused on children, and so a large part of her work seems to be about controlling what they have access to and shaping their desires. It is definitely not advocating limitless access to whatever you want, and is actually very strict about time-based and content-based access to foods.
I guess in the literal sense she advocates ‘eating whatever you like’, but the modified definition of ‘like’ that Ellyn Satter uses is not what I’d consider unrestrained.
Also I should note that it is a much better cite.
Satter and TFN both have beliefs about what people want (after adjustment periods or habit formations periods designed to clear away disorded eating patterns etc.). That doesn’t mean that they don’t really hold the belief that people (adults) should eat whatever they want, as much as they want. If I tell a houseguest they can eat anything they want in the kitchen, I really mean that when I say it, even if I am later shocked to find them eating glass bowls or something and say “I didn’t mean anything in the kitchen.”
Perhaps I can clarify my objections exploding ‘want’ into want/like/approve.
To me it feels like Ellyn Satter takes ‘-want/-like/+approves’ food behaviors then transforms the ‘-like’ and ‘-want’ variables into ‘+like’ and ‘+want’.
Comparatively, I feel like TFN takes ‘+want/+like/-approves’ food behaviors then transforms the ‘-approves’ variable into ‘+approves’.
Ellyn Satter’s stuff is all about behavior and desire modification, but everything I’ve read of TFN emphasizes approval more. In both cases you end up with ‘+want/+like/+approves’, which is a better result psychologically. But TFN just gets that, while Satter’s approach gets that and a better result physically as well. I think TFN would disagree of the original quote, while Satter would agree with caveats.