If eating trash makes us sick, why do we keep eating it?
Replies
-
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Yes, no-one said diet was the only factor in obesity, of course inactivity is too. and no one said obesity, caused largely by diet, ie consuming an excess amount of calories, is the only factor in heart disease (in fact i made a point of saying it was not the only factor.)
Nevertheless it is a very significant factor and it is a factor over which we have control - we cannot control our genetics or our gender - but we can control our weight.
I would argue that obesity is less about diet and more about inactivity. No matter what diet you choose, you have to exercise daily in order to have success in the longterm. You can out-train a caloric surplus (within reason) but your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death...
I wish that were true but people die from anorexia all the time.
I addressed that in the comment above. Like I said, I probably phrased it poorly.0 -
I bet there is an essential oil that will fix this.
Maybe Calorie Thief mix.0 -
Oil pulling will address the inflammation. Really.0
-
paperpudding wrote: »Yes, no-one said diet was the only factor in obesity, of course inactivity is too. and no one said obesity, caused largely by diet, ie consuming an excess amount of calories, is the only factor in heart disease (in fact i made a point of saying it was not the only factor.)
Nevertheless it is a very significant factor and it is a factor over which we have control - we cannot control our genetics or our gender - but we can control our weight.
I would argue that obesity is less about diet and more about inactivity. No matter what diet you choose, you have to exercise daily in order to have success in the longterm. You can out-train a caloric surplus (within reason) but your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death...
You can argue it, but that doesn't make you right. You don't have to exercise daily for long term success. While those who exercise have a higher rate of long term success than those who don't, there are still those with long term success who don't exercise at all. There are also a large number of people who successfully keep their weight down long term who exercise, but not daily.
And the "your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death" ... really. Have you heard of anorexia? You're aware that people do indeed die from it? And malnutrition? People have died from that while dieting, too, though it's much more unusual.
So those who exercise have a higher rate of success... and I am wrong how? I think you're getting hung up on the word daily. It does not mean hitting the gym 7 days week for grueling workout sessions...
As far as "your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death"... I guess I phrased it poorly. I think when people put too much focus on diet and not enough on daily exercise they can run the risk of disordered eating with death being the worst consequence of all. The mindset of, "I have to lose weight so I will go on this diet or that diet, or I will exclude this food or that food." I think if people just started daily exercise first before they even tinker with what or how much they are eating (which of course they should eventually do) they would be so much better off.
Wrong because you can always control your weight through diet no matter how little exercise you do - which makes diet the primary component for success. You can't out-exercise any diet, which makes exercise a secondary component for success.
Of course people who exercise some have a higher rate of success because they have more leeway in their diet. No argument there.
Well, OK. Then what exactly does daily exercise mean to you? To me it means getting some kind of deliberate exercise in 7 days a week - doesn't have to be a gym, could be a walk or similar. I wasn't really thinking of 'killing it in the gym'. There are still plenty of people on this site that have had long term success only doing 3-4 days of deliberate exercise. Some that have long term success with no regular deliberate exercise. Daily exercise is not necessary to keep weight off.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes, no-one said diet was the only factor in obesity, of course inactivity is too. and no one said obesity, caused largely by diet, ie consuming an excess amount of calories, is the only factor in heart disease (in fact i made a point of saying it was not the only factor.)
Nevertheless it is a very significant factor and it is a factor over which we have control - we cannot control our genetics or our gender - but we can control our weight.
I would argue that obesity is less about diet and more about inactivity. No matter what diet you choose, you have to exercise daily in order to have success in the longterm. You can out-train a caloric surplus (within reason) but your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death...
You can argue it, but that doesn't make you right. You don't have to exercise daily for long term success. While those who exercise have a higher rate of long term success than those who don't, there are still those with long term success who don't exercise at all. There are also a large number of people who successfully keep their weight down long term who exercise, but not daily.
And the "your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death" ... really. Have you heard of anorexia? You're aware that people do indeed die from it? And malnutrition? People have died from that while dieting, too, though it's much more unusual.
So those who exercise have a higher rate of success... and I am wrong how? I think you're getting hung up on the word daily. It does not mean hitting the gym 7 days week for grueling workout sessions...
As far as "your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death"... I guess I phrased it poorly. I think when people put too much focus on diet and not enough on daily exercise they can run the risk of disordered eating with death being the worst consequence of all. The mindset of, "I have to lose weight so I will go on this diet or that diet, or I will exclude this food or that food." I think if people just started daily exercise first before they even tinker with what or how much they are eating (which of course they should eventually do) they would be so much better off.
Wrong because you can always control your weight through diet no matter how little exercise you do - which makes diet the primary component for success. You can't out-exercise any diet, which makes exercise a secondary component for success.
Of course people who exercise some have a higher rate of success because they have more leeway in their diet. No argument there.
Well, OK. Then what exactly does daily exercise mean to you? To me it means getting some kind of deliberate exercise in 7 days a week - doesn't have to be a gym, could be a walk or similar. I wasn't really thinking of 'killing it in the gym'. There are still plenty of people on this site that have had long term success only doing 3-4 days of deliberate exercise. Some that have long term success with no regular deliberate exercise. Daily exercise is not necessary to keep weight off.
I respectfully disagree...
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I think the combination of sugar, fat, and flour does to my brain what drugs or alcohol does for addicts. I've smoked cigarettes in the past and I've been addicted to cigarettes in the sense that I've craved them, and it was hard to kick the habit, but those cravings were nothing like my cravings for sweet foods.
Hmm, interesting.
I'm skeptical that it's actually related to the physical properties of the food--there's just so much variation and sugar and fat seems okay in some ways but not others for people who have trigger foods--but I do think that eating disordered behavior is analogous to addiction in lots of ways. It's just that it's more a food addiction or pattern (binging or the like) rather than an actual physical response to, say, sugar, as the current popular "sugar is just like crack" stuff would have it.
But whenever I read about or hear people talking about binging disorders, it does sound a LOT like my experience with booze. And I am enormously grateful that although I've misused food from time to time (stress eating and the like) that I don't have those tendencies with it or really know what binging is like.
And I know that acknowledging a lack of control around something -- if done properly -- doesn't mean that you are making excuses or claiming no responsibility for your choices. So good for you doing what you need to do.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes, no-one said diet was the only factor in obesity, of course inactivity is too. and no one said obesity, caused largely by diet, ie consuming an excess amount of calories, is the only factor in heart disease (in fact i made a point of saying it was not the only factor.)
Nevertheless it is a very significant factor and it is a factor over which we have control - we cannot control our genetics or our gender - but we can control our weight.
I would argue that obesity is less about diet and more about inactivity. No matter what diet you choose, you have to exercise daily in order to have success in the longterm. You can out-train a caloric surplus (within reason) but your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death...
You can argue it, but that doesn't make you right. You don't have to exercise daily for long term success. While those who exercise have a higher rate of long term success than those who don't, there are still those with long term success who don't exercise at all. There are also a large number of people who successfully keep their weight down long term who exercise, but not daily.
And the "your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death" ... really. Have you heard of anorexia? You're aware that people do indeed die from it? And malnutrition? People have died from that while dieting, too, though it's much more unusual.
So those who exercise have a higher rate of success... and I am wrong how? I think you're getting hung up on the word daily. It does not mean hitting the gym 7 days week for grueling workout sessions...
As far as "your body will not allow you to diet yourself to death"... I guess I phrased it poorly. I think when people put too much focus on diet and not enough on daily exercise they can run the risk of disordered eating with death being the worst consequence of all. The mindset of, "I have to lose weight so I will go on this diet or that diet, or I will exclude this food or that food." I think if people just started daily exercise first before they even tinker with what or how much they are eating (which of course they should eventually do) they would be so much better off.
Wrong because you can always control your weight through diet no matter how little exercise you do - which makes diet the primary component for success. You can't out-exercise any diet, which makes exercise a secondary component for success.
Of course people who exercise some have a higher rate of success because they have more leeway in their diet. No argument there.
Well, OK. Then what exactly does daily exercise mean to you? To me it means getting some kind of deliberate exercise in 7 days a week - doesn't have to be a gym, could be a walk or similar. I wasn't really thinking of 'killing it in the gym'. There are still plenty of people on this site that have had long term success only doing 3-4 days of deliberate exercise. Some that have long term success with no regular deliberate exercise. Daily exercise is not necessary to keep weight off.
I respectfully disagree...
With part or all of it?0 -
What if it's not due to the intake and digestion of the sugar/fat/flour, but of how the person regards them in their mind?lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm skeptical that it's actually related to the physical properties of the food--there's just so much variation and sugar and fat seems okay in some ways but not others for people who have trigger foods--but I do think that eating disordered behavior is analogous to addiction in lots of ways.
What if it were wholly psychosomatic?
0 -
If that were true, it seems like it would be a helpful thing to know. If I were currently struggling with a perceived lack of control over something, I'd want to understand as well as I could the underlying reasons.
I do think that believing you can't control yourself after ingesting something causes that to be true (or even more true).0 -
Yeah. I can agree with that.
Just throwing that thought out there, I've seen nothing to ever indicate that it is probable, but it would be interesting, no?0 -
–Just because you can does not mean you should. Dieting without exercising is IMO a path to disordered eating...Wrong because you can always control your weight through diet no matter how little exercise you do
Again I respectfully disagree...which makes diet the primary component for success.
Not true. Again, I said within reason. That said, the physical adaptations one experiences from exercise change the game with which the body utilizes calories which again IMO, makes exercise the primary component...You can't out-exercise any diet, which makes exercise a secondary component for success.
–Agreed. More leeway means better compliance which means better success...Of course people who exercise some have a higher rate of success because they have more leeway in their diet. No argument there.
–Something as simple as long walks, hikes, playing with kids to as intense as a marathon or intense weight lifting. It means being active every day. The more advanced society becomes, the lazier IMO we become.Well, OK. Then what exactly does daily exercise mean to you?
–Absolutely disagree. Again, just because you can does not mean you should. Why make it harder on yourself by excluding something you should be doing anyway.Daily exercise is not necessary to keep weight off.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JessieLMay wrote: »So I have been having this thought quite frequently lately. I eat a bunch of junk (ie. fast food, candy, sweets, fried foods, etc.) and I feel really crappy afterwards. I feel sick to my stomach and lethargic and I swear that I will make sure that I don't feel this way ever again because it is so horrid. But then comes the next day and it's back to the desire of having all the junk again despite the knowledge of what the result will entail. So how does one break this cycle? I truly have a desire to live a healthy and active lifestyle but I feel like I am self sabotaging and trying to fulfill my subconscious self prophecy that I will fail. What are y'alls thoughts on this subject? If you have had any experiences dealing with this issue I'd love to hear about it.
Take it slow. Junk food, and sugar addictions are much like drug addictions. Most can't just quit cold turkey. Don't even try. It causes stronger addictions and binge eating. Slowly cut down what you're eating, until you're not eating it anymore. The less you eat of it, the less crappy you will feel. I actually feel better after eating that stuff, because it is a true addiction of mine that I need emotionally, but I don't eat it very often anymore. I can actually resist it. It takes a lot of time, and willpower. Good luck.
People really love tossing the term addiction around.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I wrote and truly believe the following statement -
I believe we are on the brink of a revolution to change the way people think about food as, certainly here in Australia, people are looking more and more at the types of food they eat and are starting to turn their backs on processed food because they are concerned about the additives and chemicals that are in that food.paperpudding wrote: »
really?
I havent noticed people in Australia doing that.
Yes paperpudding, things are changing and I am surprised you haven't noticed because it is all around us.
Currently, in Australia there is a petition to the Heart Foundation to revise their method of using and distributing the once highly respected "tick."
It is now felt the "tick of approval" is given to the company with the most money regardless of whether their product is deemed by current changing views as to what is healthy. People are becoming more aware of what is a healthy product and what is not. Thus the petition "To Flick the Tick" Processed foods and additives are not deemed healthy - just profit making.
Restaurants are having to make adjustments to their menus to accommodate the changing tastes of customers and the trend toward gluten free and healthy. Paleo inspired restaurants are opening around the country.
One of the chef's from the highest rating cooking show on Australia TV has a Facebook following of nearly 400,000 people all learning about eating as close to nature as possible. His cookbooks are selling in massive numbers as are the following trends in cookbooks for 2014 -
1. Stovetop Travel.
2. Live-Fire Cooking.
3. Farm to Fork.
4. Healthy, Healthy, Healthy.
5. Gluten-Free Living.
6. Eat Your Veggies.
7&8. Wine Inspired cookbooks. (Oops how did they hit the list!!)
Fruits and vegetables shops are becoming highly successful and in the case of our small local shop, I counted 60 plus people in there when I passed yesterday.
My own friends are changing their eating habits and turning their backs on processed food & sugar and are reading labels and wanting to know where their food comes from and what is in it.
These are just my personal observations and there are many, many more.
Yes things are changing and I think for the better.
I'm in Australia and I haven't noticed it either.
Is the celebrity chef you are referring to 'Paleo' Pete Evans? He is considered a joke by most of the scientific and dietetic community. He talks such nonsense. I'm surprised that people are taken in by him, but I suppose it has a lot to do with his celeb profile, which I believe he abuses to spread his silliness. It's similar to the I Quit Sugar book by Sarah Whatshername, a model passing herself off as a nutrition expert, promoting fear-mongering.
I do think that it's great that people are embracing a healthy lifestyle, with increased intake of veges and fruit, and limiting highly processed calorie dense food, but it's a shame to see non-qualified celebs given credibility as believable sources of nutrition and health advice.
Instead of Paleo restaurants (which fortunately I haven't seen), I believe we need greater scientific literacy!
I watched "Insight" recently and they said statistics show that Australia will be 70% obese by 2020. I haven't dug the source for that. If it's true then while we may be adopting a better balance of nutrition we are still overeating? I think the same show also said Australians were utilising lap band surgery more than any other country which surprised me.
I agree, I think education is key and it should start as early as possible. I think parents want help, they just don't know where to start.
0 -
Because it tastes amazing.
I use to say I had a "sugar addiction", so I understand why people believe sugar (well really the combo of sugar/fat) can feel addictive and difficult to control. It absolutely can be.
I am not a high volume eater. I am not an overall food "lover"; very, very few foods actually tempt me to overeat, or drive me to want to overindulge consistently. But ice cream (my favorite food), certain cakes and cookies will. So much so that I almost exclusively gain weight, and in the past have gained over 100 lbs, on the back of overeating a few specific foods, too often, in too high volume.
But here's the thing, I can't be an addict. If I were a "sugar addict" then I'd eat ALL the desserts. I can devour a box of Little Debbie Swiss Rolls, but can easily skip everything else they sale if those aren't available. I can consume an entire half gallon of an ice cream flavor I enjoy in a day, but wouldn't do so with a flavor I don't care for. Give me a pack of Oreos or even generic lemon sandwich cookies and I likely will clean out all three rows, yet I never even look at most other types of cookies.
If I were a "sugar addict" I wouldn't discriminate so much. I'd be mixing butter and table sugar together just for a "hit" if better wasn't available. But, as it stands, my "sugar addiction" looks more like a "Swiss Rolls/Oreo/Moosetrack Ice Cream" addiction. And that just sounds silly.
I discovered a long time ago that just abstaining from the foods that propel me to overeat for a day or two totally eliminates my craving for them. That's not how a real addiction works.
I eat certain dessert foods because I like them. I over consume them because I do now, and always have, enjoyed the taste of certain cookies, cakes and ice cream. Just because those few select foods are harder for me to put down does not mean that I'm an addict. It means that if I overeat, in that moment, the taste of those goodies are more important to me than my weight loss goals.
I've had to ask myself the tough question as to WHY would I ever put ANY food consistently above my greater goals, especially since I always, since childhood, hated being fat. The answer to that question will carry you so much further than assuming that you can't stay away from addictive "sugar".
Tough habit to break =/= Addiction0 -
-
I have always thought that anorexia had to have a chemical, physical component to it. I'm not alone there. I've talked to several shrinks who agreed. There is no proof that it is physical (but there is some interesting new stuff all the time) and it continues to be diagnosed as solely mental. Many things are classified as being only mental until physical links are established.
I think for some overweight people, there is a physical/chemical thing going on with food. I know that I have serious trouble with white breads and pasta. If I eat them, I crave more. I could not eat more, but the cravings are so overwhelming that it's so much easier to eat something I'd rather not than it is to keep not eating it. Eating more only helps for a while, though.
It's not just an issue of taste. I like Skittles and Starbursts much more than pasta, but I can have a Starburst and not crave more. I might enjoy another, but I won't require it.
I have no reason to lie about it and don't use it as an excuse to eat anything.
Not everyone has that problem. Not everyone has a problem with alcohol, either. Lots of young people drink a LOT. Some become dependent, most don't.
It's impossible to say that people don't have physical/chemical issues with food and are just lazy. It's also impossible to say that you know exactly what the issue is.
Since even the people who know the most about the brain would have to shrug their shoulders, it's kind of ridiculous to argue that it's absolutely THIS and THAT is not possible.
Nobody knows and everyone is different.
People have different strengths and weaknesses. Being able to eat a little of whatever you want doesn't make you better than the person who binges. I hope we can all agree on that.
...and the REM song was misquoted. Life is bigger than you and you are not me. 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Whenever I read about or hear people talking about binging disorders, it does sound a LOT like my experience with booze. And I am enormously grateful that although I've misused food from time to time (stress eating and the like) that I don't have those tendencies with it or really know what binging is like.
And I know that acknowledging a lack of control around something -- if done properly -- doesn't mean that you are making excuses or claiming no responsibility for your choices. So good for you doing what you need to do.What if it's not due to the intake and digestion of the sugar/fat/flour, but of how the person regards them in their mind?
What if it were wholly psychosomatic?
I think that when I eat desserts, a massive amount of endorphins and/or dopamine gets released in my brain. I think, based on my totally casual reading, that's also what happens to alcoholics and drug addicts, which gets them addicted to their substance of choice? They put a substance in their body, their brain reacts in significantly stronger ways than "normal" drinkers or drug users.
That's a model that makes sense to me, so I'm running with it for now.0 -
I have always thought that anorexia had to have a chemical, physical component to it. I'm not alone there. I've talked to several shrinks who agreed. There is no proof that it is physical (but there is some interesting new stuff all the time) and it continues to be diagnosed as solely mental. Many things are classified as being only mental until physical links are established.
I think for some overweight people, there is a physical/chemical thing going on with food. I know that I have serious trouble with white breads and pasta. If I eat them, I crave more. I could not eat more, but the cravings are so overwhelming that it's so much easier to eat something I'd rather not than it is to keep not eating it. Eating more only helps for a while, though.
It's not just an issue of taste. I like Skittles and Starbursts much more than pasta, but I can have a Starburst and not crave more. I might enjoy another, but I won't require it.
I have no reason to lie about it and don't use it as an excuse to eat anything.
Not everyone has that problem. Not everyone has a problem with alcohol, either. Lots of young people drink a LOT. Some become dependent, most don't.
It's impossible to say that people don't have physical/chemical issues with food and are just lazy. It's also impossible to say that you know exactly what the issue is.
Since even the people who know the most about the brain would have to shrug their shoulders, it's kind of ridiculous to argue that it's absolutely THIS and THAT is not possible.
Nobody knows and everyone is different.
People have different strengths and weaknesses. Being able to eat a little of whatever you want doesn't make you better than the person who binges. I hope we can all agree on that.
...and the REM song was misquoted. Life is bigger than you and you are not me.
I am like that with pasta, but not always. Most of the time, I can eat a normal portion, but sometimes I have trouble trying to stop eating. I have nothing to gain from it except weight
I hope we all agree about no one being better, too0 -
Well, to be clear, anytime we eat or drink ANYTHING, there is a release of hormones, and resultant brain stimulation.
So why does it impact some and not others? Now, if we look at drugs, basically, across the board they'll turn addictive. Heroin, cocaine, etc.
However, across the board, different food stuffs aren't addictive. Why is that? Are the ones who are addicted only impacted due to their brain? *shrug*0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I use to say I had a "sugar addiction", so I understand why people believe sugar (well really the combo of sugar/fat) can feel addictive and difficult to control. It absolutely can be.
. . .
If I were a "sugar addict" I wouldn't discriminate so much.
. . .
I discovered a long time ago that just abstaining from the foods that propel me to overeat for a day or two totally eliminates my craving for them. That's not how a real addiction works.
. . .
It means that if I overeat, in that moment, the taste of those goodies are more important to me than my weight loss goals.
I've had to ask myself the tough question as to WHY would I ever put ANY food consistently above my greater goals, especially since I always, since childhood, hated being fat. The answer to that question will carry you so much further than assuming that you can't stay away from addictive "sugar".
Tough habit to break =/= Addiction
I just wanted to say your experience sounds a lot like mine, and I appreciate you writing all of this.
0 -
I have always thought that anorexia had to have a chemical, physical component to it. I'm not alone there. I've talked to several shrinks who agreed. There is no proof that it is physical (but there is some interesting new stuff all the time) and it continues to be diagnosed as solely mental. Many things are classified as being only mental until physical links are established.
I think for some overweight people, there is a physical/chemical thing going on with food. I know that I have serious trouble with white breads and pasta. If I eat them, I crave more. I could not eat more, but the cravings are so overwhelming that it's so much easier to eat something I'd rather not than it is to keep not eating it. Eating more only helps for a while, though.
It's not just an issue of taste. I like Skittles and Starbursts much more than pasta, but I can have a Starburst and not crave more. I might enjoy another, but I won't require it.
I have no reason to lie about it and don't use it as an excuse to eat anything.
Not everyone has that problem. Not everyone has a problem with alcohol, either. Lots of young people drink a LOT. Some become dependent, most don't.
It's impossible to say that people don't have physical/chemical issues with food and are just lazy. It's also impossible to say that you know exactly what the issue is.
Since even the people who know the most about the brain would have to shrug their shoulders, it's kind of ridiculous to argue that it's absolutely THIS and THAT is not possible.
Nobody knows and everyone is different.
People have different strengths and weaknesses. Being able to eat a little of whatever you want doesn't make you better than the person who binges. I hope we can all agree on that.
...and the REM song was misquoted. Life is bigger than you and you are not me.
Obviously not. If it were a physical/chemical thing, you would crave it between eating it. True addicts crave what they are addicted to when they don't have them, due to a physical/chemical change that happens at a cellular level within the brain and the body. They suffer from withdrawal symptoms when they don't get their substance, whatever that is. If you only need more of your food once you start eating it, then what you have is an issue with control, not addiction.0 -
I have always thought that anorexia had to have a chemical, physical component to it. I'm not alone there. I've talked to several shrinks who agreed. There is no proof that it is physical (but there is some interesting new stuff all the time) and it continues to be diagnosed as solely mental. Many things are classified as being only mental until physical links are established.
I think for some overweight people, there is a physical/chemical thing going on with food. I know that I have serious trouble with white breads and pasta. If I eat them, I crave more. I could not eat more, but the cravings are so overwhelming that it's so much easier to eat something I'd rather not than it is to keep not eating it. Eating more only helps for a while, though.
It's not just an issue of taste. I like Skittles and Starbursts much more than pasta, but I can have a Starburst and not crave more. I might enjoy another, but I won't require it.
I have no reason to lie about it and don't use it as an excuse to eat anything.
Not everyone has that problem. Not everyone has a problem with alcohol, either. Lots of young people drink a LOT. Some become dependent, most don't.
It's impossible to say that people don't have physical/chemical issues with food and are just lazy. It's also impossible to say that you know exactly what the issue is.
Since even the people who know the most about the brain would have to shrug their shoulders, it's kind of ridiculous to argue that it's absolutely THIS and THAT is not possible.
Nobody knows and everyone is different.
People have different strengths and weaknesses. Being able to eat a little of whatever you want doesn't make you better than the person who binges. I hope we can all agree on that.
...and the REM song was misquoted. Life is bigger than you and you are not me.
For that matter, don't emotions often have a biochemical mechanism? Like the production of oxytocin and being in love? The question, as regards eating disorders, would be whether the emotional issue triggers the biochemical response, or vice versa.0 -
-
Iwishyouwell wrote: »...
If I were a "sugar addict" I wouldn't discriminate so much. I'd be mixing butter and table sugar together just for a "hit" if better wasn't available. But, as it stands, my "sugar addiction" looks more like a "Swiss Rolls/Oreo/Moosetrack Ice Cream" addiction. And that just sounds silly.
...
I eat certain dessert foods because I like them. I over consume them because I do now, and always have, enjoyed the taste of certain cookies, cakes and ice cream. Just because those few select foods are harder for me to put down does not mean that I'm an addict. It means that if I overeat, in that moment, the taste of those goodies are more important to me than my weight loss goals.
...
Tough habit to break =/= Addiction
This is a brilliant insight, and what I was trying to get at on an earlier page (or was it another thread?) A sugar addict would be addicted to all sugar, not just to some very specific brand or flavor of cookie. A sugar addict would be triggered by anything containing sugar, including, I would think, natural sugars, like honey in your tea or sweet potatoes, especially if cooked with brown sugar. This is typically not the case, so it does not appear to be the substance that is addictive. It's an emotional reaction.0 -
*sigh* at people using Wikipedia as a research source. There's a reason it's not allowed for college research papers, people. Anyone and everyone can add and alter the data at anytime, so it isn't exactly accurate.0 -
Wait, are we talking ED? I have binged on occasion but not to the point of a disorder. There are sometimes co morbid disorders like an ED and anxiety and OCD. The other disorders can be biochemically based. I don't know much about ED.0
-
Well, to be clear, anytime we eat or drink ANYTHING, there is a release of hormones, and resultant brain stimulation.
So why does it impact some and not others? Now, if we look at drugs, basically, across the board they'll turn addictive. Heroin, cocaine, etc.
However, across the board, different food stuffs aren't addictive. Why is that? Are the ones who are addicted only impacted due to their brain? *shrug*
I don't think an ordinary amount of sugar is going to turn anyone into an addict. But fat/sugar/flour has been my primary source of food up until 9 years ago. I've been lighting up my brain by massive amounts for 30+ years.0 -
–Just because you can does not mean you should. Dieting without exercising is IMO a path to disordered eating...Wrong because you can always control your weight through diet no matter how little exercise you do
Again I respectfully disagree...which makes diet the primary component for success.
Not true. Again, I said within reason. That said, the physical adaptations one experiences from exercise change the game with which the body utilizes calories which again IMO, makes exercise the primary component...You can't out-exercise any diet, which makes exercise a secondary component for success.
–Agreed. More leeway means better compliance which means better success...Of course people who exercise some have a higher rate of success because they have more leeway in their diet. No argument there.
–Something as simple as long walks, hikes, playing with kids to as intense as a marathon or intense weight lifting. It means being active every day. The more advanced society becomes, the lazier IMO we become.Well, OK. Then what exactly does daily exercise mean to you?
–Absolutely disagree. Again, just because you can does not mean you should. Why make it harder on yourself by excluding something you should be doing anyway.Daily exercise is not necessary to keep weight off.
Clearly we're going to disagree on this one, but the notion that losing your weight solely through dieting is a path to disordered eating is just nuts to me. That's exactly how plenty of other people on this site lost their weight. I almost count among this group, except that I was doing slo-fit at the time 1x per wk (so you can figure <100 cals burned). Other than that, I had a desk job. No disordered eating here, unless you count logging. Even that gets dropped on occasion (vacations, holidays, just plain inconvenient).
And frankly, I don't see why you 'should' be exercising 7 days a week. It certainly isn't necessary for health or for weight maintenance. Many don't have to exercise at all and can be healthy and maintain their weight if they watch their diet.
Is it better to exercise? Sure. Always better to be stronger, more flexible, have more endurance, etc. But you can do those things 3, 4 or 5 days a week with at least equal results as someone exercising 7 days a week. And if you're working at high intensity, those days off become important.0 -
Actually, for some articles it's far more accurate and up to date than other sources. The old saw of Wiki is not citable is actually changing in some regards. Quite interesting.
*sigh* at people using Wikipedia as a research source. There's a reason it's not allowed for college research papers, people. Anyone and everyone can add and alter the data at anytime, so it isn't exactly accurate.
Granted, that's the case for important subjects. Things like literary things and which makeup brand kimye use are still pretty avoidable.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Well, to be clear, anytime we eat or drink ANYTHING, there is a release of hormones, and resultant brain stimulation.
So why does it impact some and not others? Now, if we look at drugs, basically, across the board they'll turn addictive. Heroin, cocaine, etc.
However, across the board, different food stuffs aren't addictive. Why is that? Are the ones who are addicted only impacted due to their brain? *shrug*
I don't think an ordinary amount of sugar is going to turn anyone into an addict. But fat/sugar/flour has been my primary source of food up until 9 years ago. I've been lighting up my brain by massive amounts for 30+ years.
Then if anything, it would take a massive and increasing amount of them to do anything beyond basal impact.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »It's an emotional reaction.
That's my experience.
I've done a lot of introspection and pinpointed the psychological and emotional reasons why I've used sweets to sabotage my own progress. The answer to those questions are rooted in places much deeper than my weight and extend to issues that are manifest in other parts of my life.
However the reasons why I chose to not pursue important weight goals doesn't erase the fact that I tend to overeat certain cakes, cookies and ice cream because I just dig the taste.
It's that simple. I keep eating because it tastes damn good to me.
This was reiterated to me recently. This year I started eating a lot of some of those old favorites again. Since I don't consider food "bad" anymore, no matter the content nor the quantity, I don't guilt trip myself anymore over how much I eat. It's typically fine, but admittedly the last few months before October, it was enough to put a little weight back on. I kept "trying" to put a kibosh on it, but kept "failing".
Except that was a lie and rooted in an old way of thinking. Eventually I said to myself 'I'm not stopping because I'm enjoying these foods and I don't want to stop". End of story.
When I finally came round back to the place where I wanted to stop maintaining/slowly gaining, I was back pursuing my goals in the matter of 3 days. The weight I'd put on is almost gone and I'm firing on all cylinders.
The "struggle", for me, is manufactured. It use to just make me feel better about overeating, to suggest that I was in some battle that I fought valiantly, but eventually lost. This mindset helped me gain a lot of weight.
The truth of the matter is that I know exactly what I'm doing, know exactly how to stop, and I simply chose not to. And I owe it to myself to be honest about that with no moral implications.
It's just food.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions