Spartan2 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2012 at 4:22pm:

It would appear that no one here, except possibly Kerry, makes much of an attempt.

While I see your point Spartan, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your conclusion.  While I don't get the impression that many on this board are "fundamentalist foodies" there seem to be quite a few, like SoloTripper and me, who consider the food we eat. To me eating healthy is not about giving something up. To eat well is not a chore, it's a reward.  So when I go on vacation in the bush I most definitely want to reward myself with good food.  I mean why not? If I have a choice between a Snickers bar and a really good piece of chocolate, hell, I'm going for the chocolate.  Of course, that's just me.  But you get my point.  I'm definitely not into denying myself.  Eating in a healthy way isn't about depriving myself of all the things I love.  On the contrary, it's a choice for something that gives me pleasure.  Fundamentalism can be applied to anything, including health.  And when it is, it turns even health into a compulsion.  Yes you can be addicted to "being healthy," a person can be addicted to anything.  The issue isn't about what we do but how conscious we are of what we're doing.  It's like ST said, if you get all hung up about every damn thing you eat, then the neurosis you've taken on about eating completely undermines whatever  positive health benefits there might be (well, that's not exactly what he said but, you know, sort of.)  But lets not throw  the baby out with the bath water.  When I choose to eat well, it's not some kind of penance, like I really want to eat junk food but because I've "sworn" to be "pure" I don't.  To me, that sounds like hell.  I have no idea where Jon stands on this so I'm not defending his position, I'm just sayin'.