As soon as I got to the end of the first sentence of the OP, I thought, fuck no! Not even for perfect health, and I think I value my health a lot.
However, if I had trouble maintaining a healthy weight, I could see myself being more disposed to the idea. I still wouldn’t do it. For one thing, what would I even do with my dad if we didn’t cook and eat together? We have no other shared interests. *Food is what holds my family together. *
And then there’s pure hedonism. I love food and I’m gluttonous, which is why I have to stay fit. The alternative would be getting really unhealthy.
If I didn’t have to eat, I’d give it up in a heartbeat. There are a few foods that I love, but I don’t like the taste of most foods. I’d much rather spend time doing other things than cooking.
I’ve been watching what I eat for almost a year and a half now. Rarely go out to eat anymore, or eat with other people. I rarely enjoy the food I eat and to be honest wouldn’t enjoy the foods I don’t eat because they don’t fit in to my diet…that’s why I don’t eat them. I have a huge aversion to spicy and bitter, so lots of food tastes shitty to me. Yet I spend a ton of time each week shopping, cooking and looking at recipes. Just feeding myself 2000 calories a day is an absolute fucking chore. I hate it.
While I am at the point of having to be very careful with what I eat due to health issues, it’s had the benefit of forcing me to cook for myself and of learning better cooking techniques (you don’t need to mush veggies! parboiling is great!). I’m enjoying the process of choosing my ingredients, cooking and eating like never before.
As for lunch hour, often it’s an important part of teambuilding, in the kind of jobs I have - I’d be the one person staring while the rest eat, ugh!
Would it be nice to occasionally be able to switch the need to eat off? Sure, there are times when it would be convenient. But perfectly-ripened strawberries don’t whine if you bite another one, or complain that you never call.
I want the opposite of the OP. I want to be able to eat MORE and still maintain health and fitness. We’re having Easter Brunch today, which means that I’m skipping breakfast because I’ll be eating a ton at elevensies, and it’s kind of a bummer. Would love to have a full breakfast now AND brunch at 11, but alas, the flesh is weak.
I would do it. I hate hate hate cooking. Food IS my achilles heel.
I do want some kind of ability to take a few pleasureless, tasteless mouthfuls for social occasions. That should be enough to keep people from noticing that you’re not eating anything. I agree with others that time dining together is important social bonding.
Food used to be my Achilles heel, but less so as I get older. The way I feel when I eat healthfully trumps my desire to eat all the time and/or eat unhealthy foods. That said, I do love food. Healthy food can be absolutely delicious and just as sensuous as unhealthy food. It’s more a matter of knowing how to do it right. Plus, food is so satisfying after having run a few miles. So, no, I would not give up eating.
Roger Ebert has actually done this, sort of. Close to it. Not by choice, but his health problems means he can’t eat again. He can only take nutritional supplements through a feeding tube.
And I can tell you, from every person I’ve spoken to who obtains their nutrients that way, it’s a miserable experience. My former husband was on a feeding tube for months after his transplant surgery, and even though they were ‘feeding’ him massive amounts of calories and vitamins and it was all perfectly balanced just for him, he was STARVING. Complained constantly about feeling hungry. You just can’t trick the body into being sated by liquid that’s passed directly into the stomach.
Which is why I’d never take the option in the OP. Too much pleasure from the act of eating, plus the possibility that even though it looks great on paper, I might be unable to deal psychologically with the absence of food.
Man, that would be dangerous. If the Queen Bees in my family already try to turn any family meal into something resembling a wedding banquet now, what would it be like if they could feed us without us getting fat, or full, or having any kind of diet-related problems? One of their lunches would be enough for a small country!
Yeah, even Ebert says it’s bad. He says he’s adjusted to it, and it definitely better than the alternative, but he also has crazy dreams about craving Root Beer.
I get that people struggle with food, and eating healthily is a struggle for a lot of us. But as far as I’m concerned, we get one run through this life, and if you don’t make the most of the pleasures that life gives you, what’s the point? I’m not talking about eating until you’re unhealthy, or over-drinking, or getting hooked on pleasurable drugs because ultimately all of those cause more pain than pleasure, but I also see no need to restrict myself on something that, after all, is required for life, like eating. There’s plenty of very healthy food that’s also delicious, so I’m gonna go dig in.
But the point of the hypothetical is that it wouldn’t be necessary for life. Since we need to eat, we should enjoy it and eat healthily. If I didn’t need to eat, it would be, for me, like giving up those pleasurable drugs you’re talking about. I don’t use them because I don’t need them and don’t want them. I don’t feel deprived, even if they are awesome.
Working out can be fun, pleasant, social and other nice things, but the primary reason I do it is for the results, and if I could be as fit as I am without the cardio and weight training, I’d go for it.
I feel the same way about eating. It’s a nice enough activity, but the acquisition, storage, preparation, clean-up and waste removal would have a bigger impact on my life than not working out 6 hours a week.
This hypothetical is just on a personal scale, right? Applied to the world at large, a huge game-changer.