Guide to making claims based on research
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »(2) The only thing I said about "addiction" was that it's insane to claim that you can't stop eating "processed food" (which was what the underlying discussion was about) because it's extra special delicious due to secret ingredients put in it. That sounds like an ad for the food, of course, but the reason people overeat KFC (or McD or whatever) is not because "unnatural" ingredients make it more delicious than food has ever been, which was the claim in the thread we are talking about. Indeed, if you believe in an actual addiction model here, you should disagree with that too, as rather obviously addiction isn't about something being extra delicious compared to everything else. Often people who go on about "processed foods" like baking soda woman did seem to think that they are all super tasty and home cooked foods aren't tempting in that way, which just makes me think they've never had properly prepared home cooked foods or been to a really good restaurant.
Ding, ding, ding!! I'm not trying to get into a ~1000 post thread but I will say that my cooking personally typically doesn't taste as good or super tempting as what I could get at a restaurant or when some of my family cooks. That's why it's so depressing when I eat at a restaurant and could actually make the item better. That's just, it ain't right yall! I do have the same tendency to overeat whether I'm at a restaurant or visiting family who have made all my favorite things
Also when I'm cooking I go easy on the oil, etc. When restaurants or other people cook they're going for flavor, damn the calories (actually they don't give it a first or second thought). If the end result is delicious, I'm inhaling it.
Note that my comments are restricted to reasons why one might choose to eat inappropriate quantities of the described foods. I do not really have an opinion on addiction / unnatural / processed or not
Oh, I do understand this. I eat out reasonably often and it's one of my challenges, since I know they use far more butter than I do, for example, in making similar dishes. And I love trying dishes that I might not think of at home or something I'm not experienced or as talented at making. But ultimately when I used to rack up calorie surpluses due to eating out its because I thought "special occasion, might as well enjoy it with abandon" when I was doing it 2-3 times a week. Not because I truly had less control or because the food was made with different ingredients, although they certainly could be more indulgent ones on average. Indeed, although I don't eat much fast food for my own reasons (and didn't when I was gaining weight either), I know I'd probably end up eating calories similar to one of my regular meals--and thus stay in a deficit--if I went there for my dinners out, just based on the calorie counts and what I'd order. That's more challenging at many restaurants that don't come in for the suspicion by the "clean eating" types, and I know even without going nuts it's easy to go way over what my normal meals would be, and not because of some scary ingredient that's intended to addict me or whatever the usual conspiracy theory is.
As indicated above, my post was intended to relate to discussions here where some claim that people are fat today because we are unable to resist the super palatability of "processed" and fast foods, because something in them (these dastardly ingredients) make them extra tasty. I think the issue is more convenience and price, plus an absence of some traditional restraints on how much people eat, not that we are tempted by uniquely tempting foods or "addictive" ingredients. I don't buy that fast food or packaged food is so much more tasty (or tastier at all) than food traditionally has been or than well prepared home cooked food is.
None of this is intended to suggest that they, like any other foods, might not be trigger foods for some. I'm sure they could be and don't consider that a crazy statement at all.
On the other matter, I just think it's individual. Some do well identifying triggers and cutting them out, whereas others who struggle with binging who have found that cutting out foods makes it harder for them. My big objection here is just to assuming that because something worked for one person that everyone else must follow a similar strategy. (I know you weren't saying anything like that, but am just lazily tagging it onto this post.)
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
. . .
None of that relates to my point here which was that KFC is not magically (or technologically) more tasty than home cooked food or therefore more impossible to resist.
That's just goofy.
Yes, I agree -- most of what I posted has nothing whatsoever to do with most of what you posted.
I understand that the conversation was about secret ingredients and whether or not food companies are using them in a nefarious plot to addict us all.
I wanted to stand up and say that I'm someone who will suggest that some foods are impossible to turn down.
I realize I'm steering the conversation away from the KFC and towards something else -- the issue of citing scientific evidence vs personal experience, which I think was the original intent of this thread? I can't even remember if we are on the "here's how to cite" thread or the "personal experience" thread. LOL
What I didn't realize was that my post could look like a dressing down of you personally. I didn't mean that at all -- and I apologize that it came off that way.
0 -
It's true. The custard base I made for my bread pudding for dinner was so good, I gave my neighbor a taste of it and now he's trying to get an invite for dinner.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
This has nothing whatsoever to do with my post.
. . .
None of that relates to my point here which was that KFC is not magically (or technologically) more tasty than home cooked food or therefore more impossible to resist.
That's just goofy.
Yes, I agree -- most of what I posted has nothing whatsoever to do with most of what you posted.
I understand that the conversation was about secret ingredients and whether or not food companies are using them in a nefarious plot to addict us all.
I wanted to stand up and say that I'm someone who will suggest that some foods are impossible to turn down.
I realize I'm steering the conversation away from the KFC and towards something else -- the issue of citing scientific evidence vs personal experience, which I think was the original intent of this thread? I can't even remember if we are on the "here's how to cite" thread or the "personal experience" thread. LOL
What I didn't realize was that my post could look like a dressing down of you personally. I didn't mean that at all -- and I apologize that it came off that way.
Even offered to pay for a seat.
The curse of cooking well.
0 -
Mmmmm. I love KFC. Still alive.
So do I.
I used to work for them a long time ago. When I did the closing shifts, my flatmates would wait on the bench outside for me to finish. I always had at least 10 pieces of leftover, and fries that we accidentally on purpose cooked too many of.
The coleslaw woman used to work at the store I worked at. She made the massive bins of coleslaw that would be tubbed up and distributed locally. There is nothing quite like fresh KFC coleslaw.
Anyway, despite eating massive amounts of KFC over the years, I too am still alive....
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I realize I'm steering the conversation away from the KFC and towards something else -- the issue of citing scientific evidence vs personal experience, which I think was the original intent of this thread? I can't even remember if we are on the "here's how to cite" thread or the "personal experience" thread. LOL
What I didn't realize was that my post could look like a dressing down of you personally. I didn't mean that at all -- and I apologize that it came off that way.
I thought you provided an excellent example of the actual topic subject on hand, and that example happened to be a side thread that had started in this topic.
I didn't even think you were responding to whatever you quoted.
I think you were in context and started post to get that point across. The example happened to have excellent details. And great visual separator too.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Yes, I agree -- most of what I posted has nothing whatsoever to do with most of what you posted.
I'd say none, since you weren't arguing that food is "addictive" since "too delicious," which was the claim in the other thread I was talking about in response to Walking Along's post about the discussion over there. But really, it's not a big thing, I just found it puzzling.What I didn't realize was that my post could look like a dressing down of you personally. I didn't mean that at all -- and I apologize that it came off that way.
I appreciate that, and I didn't think it came off as a dressing down. What bugged me--although not seriously, but why I probably seemed irritated in my first response, is that I tend to take responses as, well, responsive to posts that are quoted. So if I quote someone and say something like "I don't think it's a moral failing to be fat" I will typically try to clarify by saying "I don't think you are saying this, but on another topic..." or some such, since otherwise I think it gets taken often as if the original poster was arguing the opposite, or as if the responder thought he/she was. So when you gave a long screed in response to my post, I thought it operated as/appeared to be a claim that I was saying all the things (like everyone should eat everything in moderation, no matter what) which I wasn't. And which you even should have realized I wasn't, since you had already discussed it with me in another very recent thread.
But this may just be my own perception/weird idea of forum etiquette, and I'm sure I don't always follow it perfectly. I just wanted to explain my issue wasn't that I thought you were "dressing me down."
Cheers.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
My personal preference though I enjoyed your reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRmLGYSc0XQ 0 -
Here's my personal favorite: ninja eating.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »(2) The only thing I said about "addiction" was that it's insane to claim that you can't stop eating "processed food" (which was what the underlying discussion was about) because it's extra special delicious due to secret ingredients put in it. That sounds like an ad for the food, of course, but the reason people overeat KFC (or McD or whatever) is not because "unnatural" ingredients make it more delicious than food has ever been, which was the claim in the thread we are talking about. Indeed, if you believe in an actual addiction model here, you should disagree with that too, as rather obviously addiction isn't about something being extra delicious compared to everything else. Often people who go on about "processed foods" like baking soda woman did seem to think that they are all super tasty and home cooked foods aren't tempting in that way, which just makes me think they've never had properly prepared home cooked foods or been to a really good restaurant.
Ding, ding, ding!! I'm not trying to get into a ~1000 post thread but I will say that my cooking personally typically doesn't taste as good or super tempting as what I could get at a restaurant or when some of my family cooks. That's why it's so depressing when I eat at a restaurant and could actually make the item better. That's just, it ain't right yall! I do have the same tendency to overeat whether I'm at a restaurant or visiting family who have made all my favorite things
Also when I'm cooking I go easy on the oil, etc. When restaurants or other people cook they're going for flavor, damn the calories (actually they don't give it a first or second thought). If the end result is delicious, I'm inhaling it.
Note that my comments are restricted to reasons why one might choose to eat inappropriate quantities of the described foods. I do not really have an opinion on addiction / unnatural / processed or not
Oh, I do understand this. I eat out reasonably often and it's one of my challenges, since I know they use far more butter than I do, for example, in making similar dishes. And I love trying dishes that I might not think of at home or something I'm not experienced or as talented at making. But ultimately when I used to rack up calorie surpluses due to eating out its because I thought "special occasion, might as well enjoy it with abandon" when I was doing it 2-3 times a week. Not because I truly had less control or because the food was made with different ingredients, although they certainly could be more indulgent ones on average. Indeed, although I don't eat much fast food for my own reasons (and didn't when I was gaining weight either), I know I'd probably end up eating calories similar to one of my regular meals--and thus stay in a deficit--if I went there for my dinners out, just based on the calorie counts and what I'd order. That's more challenging at many restaurants that don't come in for the suspicion by the "clean eating" types, and I know even without going nuts it's easy to go way over what my normal meals would be, and not because of some scary ingredient that's intended to addict me or whatever the usual conspiracy theory is.
As indicated above, my post was intended to relate to discussions here where some claim that people are fat today because we are unable to resist the super palatability of "processed" and fast foods, because something in them (these dastardly ingredients) make them extra tasty. I think the issue is more convenience and price, plus an absence of some traditional restraints on how much people eat, not that we are tempted by uniquely tempting foods or "addictive" ingredients. I don't buy that fast food or packaged food is so much more tasty (or tastier at all) than food traditionally has been or than well prepared home cooked food is.
None of this is intended to suggest that they, like any other foods, might not be trigger foods for some. I'm sure they could be and don't consider that a crazy statement at all.
On the other matter, I just think it's individual. Some do well identifying triggers and cutting them out, whereas others who struggle with binging who have found that cutting out foods makes it harder for them. My big objection here is just to assuming that because something worked for one person that everyone else must follow a similar strategy. (I know you weren't saying anything like that, but am just lazily tagging it onto this post.)
Seems to me like you could be arriving at similar conclusions to the "addictive special ingredient" folks, just minus the tin foil hat
So why is your big thing that just because it worked for a number of people, it wouldn't necessarily work for one person? I think a) that's a given, but b), when I present a problem, chances are I think I'm on my own. Something's wrong with me; I'm experiencing some difficulty that "normal" people don't. Now to hear that lots of people have experienced this similar problem and here's a possible solution I could try, and details on why it is successful, how to execute it and reasons why it could work for me, especially in a community such as this, that's worth it's weight in gold.0 -
Are abstracts okay? or do you need the whole article?0
-
Seems to me like you could be arriving at similar conclusions to the "addictive special ingredient" folks, just minus the tin foil hat
That's interesting--how so?
I'm wondering if the background to my original comment which really was a specific reference to the claims of the baking soda woman and some other similar posters (that corporate America is responsible for obesity because food today is unfairly palatable or some such) has been lost. I never said--and don't think--that everyone must eat everything in moderation or that individuals might not have trigger foods. I just think that's about their psychological reaction to those foods (or perhaps their personal taste, although I am skeptical that true binging results from palatability, although much overeating of course does). It's not because the food has properties that are addictive.
In a more practical situation--how do I stop overeating X--I think the advice is more significant than the theory and that how I stopped or other people stopped would be useful to know, as it might provide ideas about what to try, as you say below. The theory discussions are IMO a whole separate kind of discussion.So why is your big thing that just because it worked for a number of people, it wouldn't necessarily work for one person?
That's not what I said. I said (as you quoted): "My big objection here is just to assuming that because something worked for one person that everyone else must follow a similar strategy.
Specifically, I see this a lot with low carb (or lowered carb) fans--that everyone must be hungrier on a higher carb diet, that everyone who struggles with hunger must lower carbs, even though some say that they find carbs satiating and need them. Same with people who insist that eating sugar will derail you or that we all go nuts about the "addictive" processed food or whatever, or that cutting sugar is always better because they assume that's how everyone gained weight in the first place. It's generalizations that ignore the fact that people are different about such things. (I'd include in this the insistence that everyone eat everything, that people eat breakfast or not eat breakfast, that people eat more calories for breakfast than other meals or not after 6 pm, that people not eat back exercise calories, that people eat 10x their goal weight, etc.--these are all things I've seen presented dogmatically as one size fits all prescriptions that ignore differences. Again, that's not the same thing as "for me I found it helpful to eat breakfast because I tended to be less hungry when I did."I think a) that's a given, but b), when I present a problem, chances are I think I'm on my own. Something's wrong with me; I'm experiencing some difficulty that "normal" people don't. Now to hear that lots of people have experienced this similar problem and here's a possible solution I could try, and details on why it is successful, how to execute it and reasons why it could work for me, especially in a community such as this, that's worth it's weight in gold.
Yes, I agree with all this. Saying "I had that issue and this is what worked for me" (which I do all the time) isn't at all what I was talking about. But quite often I see people losing sight of the fact that different strategies work for different people. Some advice is generally applicable (like calories in, calories out, in the sense that absent a medical problem you will lose weight if you eat less than you burn). But much--like macro ratios, percentage of carbs that work best for you, meal timing, whether IF seems like a plausible strategy or a nightmare, etc., whether focusing on food choice or eating less of the same things, even whether you want a 1000 calorie deficit or a 250 one (assuming that leaves you at a reasonable number of calories, anyway) are all going to be more individual things, depending on personality and other such attributes. Often pronouncements made about what works don't allow for that.
To go back to the "trigger foods make me binge" thing, I totally agree that saying "I had that issue and stopped eating X and that helped" is fair advice and could be helpful. I don't think saying "the right way to deal if you have a binging issue is to cut out the trigger foods because you are an addict" is good advice, and I think phrased that way it can be harmful. I've seen people here who struggle with binging be derailed by cutting things out too. So I think it's important to say that "I tried X, but know yourself." I did temporarily cut things out and there are foods I don't eat now (although not because they are triggers) but part of why that worked for me is that my particular issue has never been binging OR guilt about food, so that makes a difference to what I evaluate might work or not, for me.0 -
-
-
-
-
I have found the super secret food crack, it's called Ande's chocolate mints. I expect to be publishing soon.0
-
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »I have found the super secret food crack, it's called Ande's chocolate mints. I expect to be publishing soon.
Did you see they have a cherries jubilee variant out for the holidays?
0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »I have found the super secret food crack, it's called Ande's chocolate mints. I expect to be publishing soon.
Did you see they have a cherries jubilee variant out for the holidays?
No, further study may now be required.....0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMS6tGOACo
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions