“Eat when hungry, sleep when tired.”
This ancient Zen saying is a simple prescription for a satisfying life. But for many people, eating is anything but simple. It is ironic that in a land of plenty, large numbers of people suffer from unbalanced relationship to food.
There is an epidemic of obesity and fatty liver disease now among children as well as adults in the west, and predictions that this generation of children may have shorter lives than their parents. The problem is not in the food or the body but in the mind’s sense of dissatisfaction and in the heart’s longing for connection. The ancient Zen practice of bringing focused attention to the simple acts of eating and drinking has the power to help people rediscover their natural balance and joyfulness with food and eating.
In this workshop we will use the tools of mindfulness and insight to renew our healthy connection to hunger, eating and satisfaction. The practice of mindful eating will bring benefit not only to us but can be passed on to help those we serve.
Discussant: Dr. Margaret Sheridan, Eating Disorders Specialist, Buddhist-influenced Psychotherapist.
While the notion of psychology as an empirical science has been present throughout its history, a critical event in the United States of America (USA) began a process that is presently embodied in the widely-used colloquial (and controversial) term, 'Evidence-Based Practice'. In 1995, upon the urging of the American Psychological Association's Division 12 (Clinical Psychology) president, David Barlow, a task force developed criteria for the validation of psychological therapies/techniques utilizing methodologies similar to the Randomized Control Trials experimental standard used by the USA's Food and Drug Administration to approve pharmaceuticals. This operational definition began an ongoing seismic conflict within the field as to what constitutes effective therapeutic work, with terms changing from 'empirically-validated treatments' to 'empirically-supported treatments' to, at present, 'evidence-based practice' or 'best practices'. The conflict's central tenet involves the inherent difficulty - some would argue impossibility - of generalizing from experimental research conditions and participants to everyday practice and consumers of psychological services who have little, if any, resemblance to subjects of research.