I once noted that since Shakespeare and Hank Williams there is really nothing new to say — only the challenges of finding new ways to say it. I don’t know if that’s totally true, but it sounds good when you are speaking to a civic club.

My point is that we are constantly finding new wrappings for old stuff.

Today, there is a professor out there touting what would appear to be a new way to battle weight gain. He calls it “intuitive eating.”

So what the heck is that?

Well, the fact is it’s just common sense. It has worked for this professor, and it would work for a lot of other people if they embraced it. It’s not about counting calories and it’s not about denying yourself food that you really enjoy. It’s all about applying basic intellect and moderation.

Professor Steven Hawks of Brigham Young University doesn’t deny himself ice cream and Hershey bars. Actually, he says he eats some of everything he likes. The key is he just eats small portions. Wow! What a concept!

Now if this was called the “common sense diet” it would get little attention. It’s just too mundane. It’s not rich with expectancy. It doesn’t roll off the tongue like the French word for love. And it would be hard to sell. Diets have to be sold. If they are free, there’s the perception that they won’t work.

Hawks, by the way, teaches health. And he probably knew that a quasi fancy name would be required. So comes “intuitive eating.” Eat some of everything you want, but leave some for seed is how I interpret his plan. Also, only eat when you are hungry and quit when the hunger subsides. This is where the intellect enters the picture. And based on Jay Leno’s street interviews (Jaywalking) on the Tonight Show, our nation is running several quarts low on that commodity. So, this intuitive thing is only as relevant as the available mental capacity.

Hawks also points out that there is some psychology in not denying yourself these tastes. By completely denying yourself a food, you establish in your psyche that something is forbidden, and human nature eventually demands that you dive into it head first and do the backstroke. I guess this is sort of like using some reverse psychology on yourself. Since you do get the small tastes, it’s not perceived as forbidden fruit — or perhaps more applicably, forbidden pork chops.

I’ve tried this approach without the fancy handle attached. And it works. My problem has been the culture of eating I grew up in — three big meals a day on the farm.

I am very weak when it comes to the suggestion of food. It’s almost a sport with me. Some guys play golf, I like to eat. I can’t even carry on a golf conversation because putt-putt is my only experience with golf. If the conversation involves “birdies,” I’m can only refer to drumsticks I have known. And if that conversation is about a particular club they like, I can only ask if it was on honey wheat bread or rye.

But I’m actually trying the “intuitive” thing again. I know there’s no magic formula to losing weight. I have concluded that the thing about “no pain, no gain” has rather broad application in life. And when it comes to losing weight, with a slight modification of rhyming terms, I have decided that “if it doesn’t hurt, it doesn’t work.” I also do not diminish the need for exercise in this endeavor. But I’ve discovered that “push aways” are as active an ingredient as “push ups.”

Now it has just occurred to me that we spend incredible amounts of time on divising eating plans. So what if our federal government spent that much time on spending plans?

What if we coined the phrase “intuitive spending?” What if we did not build bridges to nowhere and what if we didn’ buy $64 dollar hammers and $200 toilet seats and coffee makers that can withstand the crash of a 747. Oh heck, I’m back to that common sense thing again. Excuse me for getting off on a tangent.

(Dwain Walden is editor/publisher of The Moultrie Observer, 985-4545. E-mail: dwain.walden@gaflnews.com)