"Clean" or Flexible Eating - food for thought?
Options
Replies
-
There's a certain irony here that I clicked out of this current thread and immediately saw the one below..........
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10077140/no-sugar-my-son-is-12-and-234-pounds#latest
I just saw that - that is a hard situation to be in.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »This all gets so predictable so quickly. Seriously, you are not doing the "newbies" any favors telling them it is a bad idea to replace soda.
As I said in the relevant thread, I disagree.
If someone has thought about it and thinks that getting rid of diet soda will help them for some reason (broad focus on health, messes up the palate, whatever), then yes, it might be a good choice for that person. You have to know yourself. And of course whether I think it's a smart choice or not, I'd give helpful advice (I believe my helpful advice in that thread was chill iced tea, herbal is good, and if you aren't cutting caffeine maybe a bit more coffee or black tea to compensate).
However, there is a LOT of false information about dieting and nutrition going around (some intentionally spread by people who have their own axes to grind and think any reason to quit soda is good, true or not). Thus, if someone is quitting diet soda because she thinks it is necessary in order to lose weight or has read that drinking diet is as bad as regular from a weight loss perspective or such or thinks aspartame is extremely toxic, I am going to tell her that's not true and that I lost weight drinking diet with no problem. Since it has no calories, for most people it's irrelevant and many "experts" recommend switching to diet for the short term at least if you have a soda habit. For most losing weight is a far better thing to do for your health than quitting diet soda, so why endanger the first goal by making it harder or doing everything at once?
My reason why is that changing your diet can be difficult at first especially if you are someone (unlike me) without a history of eating a healthy balanced diet and are struggling with counting for the first time and cooking and so on. Also trying to do without a drink you enjoy could make it harder for absolutely no reason. As I mentioned, I don't drink a lot of soda, but I do drink a lot of coffee, and while I normally would give that up (and go vegetarian) for Lent, last year I did not, because I was only in my second month of the restricted calorie thing and I thought it would be too much at once. Now that I have the calories down and am nearly at goal, I might do the vegetarian thing and am definitely giving up coffee (although it will be killer, sigh).
It's about making it easier on yourself and the fact that some things might be better prioritized over others.
If someone says "no, I want to do this because it makes it easier for me not to have anything sweet for a while" (or some other reason), then great, but this idea that it's mean or disrespectful to make these points to make sure the person is aware of them, and that it's not necessary, is, well, weird.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Calling it devil, toxic and poison is.MoiAussi93 wrote: »LOL! No, it is not the same thing.
Many experts in the field believe sugar IS addictive. And even if the matter isn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt yet, talking about a food...or substance of any kind...potentially being addictive is hardly calling it "the devil". Again, this is what I mean by extreme language. All it does is promote a flame war, and it helps nobody. Discussing rationally is always a much better option. Some people here are incapable, or just unwilling, unfortunately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1072909/toxic-sugar-lustig-taubes
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1432905/giving-up-sugar-weekdays-only
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1078847/sugar-toxic-to-mice-in-small-doses
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1408160/sugar-is-the-new-devil
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1217191/sugar-is-the-devil
Correcting or complaining about someone's grammar or spelling is already a violation here. I wonder if the new owners will expand that to being a pedant and taking everything people say literally instead of as expressions of speech.
Seriously. I really don't understand why some people get so sensitive when someone criticizes things they like.
Saying sugar is the devil doesn't make anyone sensitive. It makes people LAUGH.
More seriously, it demonstrates a problematic attitude toward food that makes rational conversation basically impossible. If you fear sugar, and yet claim--as people weirdly do--that it's in EVERYTHING and you CAN'T stop eating it, then maybe you aren't approaching it the right way.
(It's not in everything. I'm not even trying to restrict it at the moment and I eat almost no added sugar unless I seek it out.)0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Here we go again with the define this, show me a study justifying your opinion, oh THAT study doesn't count routine. Once again, no thanks.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »LOL! No, it is not the same thing.
Many experts in the field believe sugar IS addictive. And even if the matter isn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt yet, talking about a food...or substance of any kind...potentially being addictive is hardly calling it "the devil". Again, this is what I mean by extreme language. All it does is promote a flame war, and it helps nobody. Discussing rationally is always a much better option. Some people here are incapable, or just unwilling, unfortunately.
Oh, you just walked right into that one. I really don't want to derail this thread because I like Evgeni, but I seriously doubt you could prove that with anything credible.
Like, say, the DSM V.
This all gets so predictable so quickly. Seriously, you are not doing the "newbies" any favors telling them it is a bad idea to replace soda.
Reductio ad absurdum. Nice. And typical. Also ignoring the explanations which have already been given for that added something special.
You'd have a good point. If that's what I did. If that's what anyone did.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
You are working under the premise that restricting junk food increases the probability of failure. I know that the opposite is true for many people. What works for you is not what is best for everybody. Please try to understand that point. If somebody has made a decision to eliminate something with little or no nutritional value other than calories from their diet, it does not help them to try to tell them they are wrong.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Who is calling anything a "magic bullet". Wow, you do use extremely colorful language...in every post it seems.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »What are you even talking about? I have never called soda "disgusting" or a "filthy habit". If someone else has and you have a problem with that, please take it up with them, not me. This is just silly...this is what fourth graders do. Someone criticizes something they like and they get angry about it.
Again, I ask why you care if someone else wants to eliminate soda or anything else? Eliminating soda hardly makes a person an "extremist". If you can't understand that, then there's not much I can do to make you understand.
I care because placing unneeded arbitrary rule and restrictions on weight loss often results in failure. I already explained that.
People often want to give up things in the misguided belief that it's a magic bullet for weight loss and if they just do that one special thing, everything will fall into place.
Their head is still not into the game at that point.
Trying to eat everything in moderation also often ends in failure. Face reality...most attempts end in failure. That is why 2/3 of Americans, and growing numbers of people in other countries, are overweight or obese.
Oh for pity's sake, you do like to nit pick, don't you? My use of "colorful language" is a distillation of a thought process that runs through the postings that I've seen here. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
So, yes, most diet attempts do end in failure. Begging the question...why make it even HARDER by adding unnecessary food group eliminations on top of good old calorie restriction if just doing that is hard enough?
Oh, so your experience is better/more valid? Do tell.
Motivation behind giving the substance up is key to whether the person will be successful with elimination or not.
Please be careful using "restrict" when you mean eliminate. I think everyone restricts junk food. Including the IIFYM's people.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
You are working under the premise that restricting junk food increases the probability of failure. I know that the opposite is true for many people. What works for you is not what is best for everybody. Please try to understand that point. If somebody has made a decision to eliminate something with little or no nutritional value other than calories from their diet, it does not help them to try to tell them they are wrong.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Who is calling anything a "magic bullet". Wow, you do use extremely colorful language...in every post it seems.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »What are you even talking about? I have never called soda "disgusting" or a "filthy habit". If someone else has and you have a problem with that, please take it up with them, not me. This is just silly...this is what fourth graders do. Someone criticizes something they like and they get angry about it.
Again, I ask why you care if someone else wants to eliminate soda or anything else? Eliminating soda hardly makes a person an "extremist". If you can't understand that, then there's not much I can do to make you understand.
I care because placing unneeded arbitrary rule and restrictions on weight loss often results in failure. I already explained that.
People often want to give up things in the misguided belief that it's a magic bullet for weight loss and if they just do that one special thing, everything will fall into place.
Their head is still not into the game at that point.
Trying to eat everything in moderation also often ends in failure. Face reality...most attempts end in failure. That is why 2/3 of Americans, and growing numbers of people in other countries, are overweight or obese.
Oh for pity's sake, you do like to nit pick, don't you? My use of "colorful language" is a distillation of a thought process that runs through the postings that I've seen here. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
So, yes, most diet attempts do end in failure. Begging the question...why make it even HARDER by adding unnecessary food group eliminations on top of good old calorie restriction if just doing that is hard enough?
Why do you think that people--people who choose to post on the internet, even--are such delicate flowers? If someone does something based on false information (like those who worry that they won't lose weight because they ate one gummi bear), they should learn the facts, which is that calories are what matter, not avoiding the demon sugar. If not eating sugar helps you keep a deficit (which it can), then great, but any ADULT should want to understand what they are doing and why it works.
And anyone who posts on the internet should be able to explain what they think and why they want to do the things they are seeking support for and just generally have a rational conversation. Asking why or being told it's not necessary or even some pushback shouldn't be the end of the world. I expect pushback when I say what I'm doing or express my opinion. That's what makes a forum fun--the exchange of ideas.0 -
Not an ad hominem at all. There are people on this site (I'm not speaking of you since I haven't seen enough of your posts before this thread to evaluate) who I suspect just read every thread waiting for someone to ask for advice on how to stop eating this or drinking that so that they can immediately rush in to say "why are you doing that?", "do you have a medical condition?", "there is no reason to stop eating that", "oh your doctor told your son to cut that out...then you need a new doctor".EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Calling it devil, toxic and poison is.MoiAussi93 wrote: »LOL! No, it is not the same thing.
Many experts in the field believe sugar IS addictive. And even if the matter isn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt yet, talking about a food...or substance of any kind...potentially being addictive is hardly calling it "the devil". Again, this is what I mean by extreme language. All it does is promote a flame war, and it helps nobody. Discussing rationally is always a much better option. Some people here are incapable, or just unwilling, unfortunately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1072909/toxic-sugar-lustig-taubes
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1432905/giving-up-sugar-weekdays-only
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1078847/sugar-toxic-to-mice-in-small-doses
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1408160/sugar-is-the-new-devil
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1217191/sugar-is-the-devil
Correcting or complaining about someone's grammar or spelling is already a violation here. I wonder if the new owners will expand that to being a pedant and taking everything people say literally instead of as expressions of speech.
Seriously. I really don't understand why some people get so sensitive when someone criticizes things they like.
Ah, yeah, when you can't address the content, nothing like trying to undermine the messenger. It's a weak and unsubtle attempt of ad hominem - now the people that show you that in fact "devil, toxic and poison" is used on the forum are labeled "pedantic" and "so sensitive".
I don't care if it is called the great destroyer, Beelzebub or what not - but it clearly is. Saying it doesn't happen is just false.
C'mon, you can do better than that.
When the usual suspects join in, I sometimes chuckle to myself and imagine the first sugar/soda/artificial sweetener/whatever defender to spot the thread sent out a "bat signal" to summon reinforcements. Yes, I have a strange sense of humor but it works for me! LOL!
There is no reason for this angry reaction. It seriously does seem to me they are overly sensitive and somehow view the idea of somebody else making different health choices than they have as somehow invalidating their own choices. It doesn't, of course.0 -
I choose to treat them as adults and not second guess every decision they make...especially when there is no harm in their choices. If someone decides they want to eliminate something and asks for suggestions on substitutions, they shouldn't be grilled on why they have made that decision and told that they shouldn't do it. You say they are adults, then treat them like adults.lemurcat12 wrote: »Why do you think that people--people who choose to post on the internet, even--are such delicate flowers? If someone does something based on false information (like those who worry that they won't lose weight because they ate one gummi bear), they should learn the facts, which is that calories are what matter, not avoiding the demon sugar. If not eating sugar helps you keep a deficit (which it can), then great, but any ADULT should want to understand what they are doing and why it works.
And anyone who posts on the internet should be able to explain what they think and why they want to do the things they are seeking support for and just generally have a rational conversation. Asking why or being told it's not necessary or even some pushback shouldn't be the end of the world. I expect pushback when I say what I'm doing or express my opinion. That's what makes a forum fun--the exchange of ideas.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I choose to treat them as adults and not second guess every decision they make...especially when there is no harm in their choices. If someone decides they want to eliminate something and asks for suggestions on substitutions, they shouldn't be grilled on why they have made that decision and told that they shouldn't do it. You say they are adults, then treat them like adults.lemurcat12 wrote: »Why do you think that people--people who choose to post on the internet, even--are such delicate flowers? If someone does something based on false information (like those who worry that they won't lose weight because they ate one gummi bear), they should learn the facts, which is that calories are what matter, not avoiding the demon sugar. If not eating sugar helps you keep a deficit (which it can), then great, but any ADULT should want to understand what they are doing and why it works.
And anyone who posts on the internet should be able to explain what they think and why they want to do the things they are seeking support for and just generally have a rational conversation. Asking why or being told it's not necessary or even some pushback shouldn't be the end of the world. I expect pushback when I say what I'm doing or express my opinion. That's what makes a forum fun--the exchange of ideas.
Point to a post of mine where I haven't, please.
Providing information or asking a question is not disrespectful or "grilling." That's just weird.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Here we go again with the define this, show me a study justifying your opinion, oh THAT study doesn't count routine. Once again, no thanks.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »LOL! No, it is not the same thing.
Many experts in the field believe sugar IS addictive. And even if the matter isn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt yet, talking about a food...or substance of any kind...potentially being addictive is hardly calling it "the devil". Again, this is what I mean by extreme language. All it does is promote a flame war, and it helps nobody. Discussing rationally is always a much better option. Some people here are incapable, or just unwilling, unfortunately.
Oh, you just walked right into that one. I really don't want to derail this thread because I like Evgeni, but I seriously doubt you could prove that with anything credible.
Like, say, the DSM V.
This all gets so predictable so quickly. Seriously, you are not doing the "newbies" any favors telling them it is a bad idea to replace soda.
oh yea, I remember this guy ..mr "make crazy claims" and then when asked to back them up with studies says that he will not provide them because it is not necessary ..
it must be nice to live in a universe where you can just claim whatever you want and never have to back it up …
0 -
Asking for someone's medical history because they ask what to substitute for a food they want to eliminate is grilling. And just weird.lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I choose to treat them as adults and not second guess every decision they make...especially when there is no harm in their choices. If someone decides they want to eliminate something and asks for suggestions on substitutions, they shouldn't be grilled on why they have made that decision and told that they shouldn't do it. You say they are adults, then treat them like adults.lemurcat12 wrote: »Why do you think that people--people who choose to post on the internet, even--are such delicate flowers? If someone does something based on false information (like those who worry that they won't lose weight because they ate one gummi bear), they should learn the facts, which is that calories are what matter, not avoiding the demon sugar. If not eating sugar helps you keep a deficit (which it can), then great, but any ADULT should want to understand what they are doing and why it works.
And anyone who posts on the internet should be able to explain what they think and why they want to do the things they are seeking support for and just generally have a rational conversation. Asking why or being told it's not necessary or even some pushback shouldn't be the end of the world. I expect pushback when I say what I'm doing or express my opinion. That's what makes a forum fun--the exchange of ideas.
Point to a post of mine where I haven't, please.
Providing information or asking a question is not disrespectful or "grilling." That's just weird.
0 -
Oh, here we are. Here's what I said to the OP in the soda thread:
Laurend224 wrote:
"People make it so much harder than it has to be."
I responded: "Agreed.
But my answer is iced tea. I like chilling the herbal kind."
And then a few posts later:
"I think if she wants to give it up she should. Some people probably feel better not drinking it, especially if they seem to drink it to the exclusion of everything else. I give up coffee from time to time since I can get into a pattern of going overboard with it (right now I'm trying not to drink coffee or caffeinated tea after noon and it's driving me a bit crazy, since I was overdoing it).
However, sometimes people think they ought to give up something instead of really wanting to, and diet soda is one of those things where you hear that it's poison or making you fat or silly things that are not true. If people are giving it up for those reasons, and not more factual ones, they might want to know that it's not necessary--for example, that lots of people are able to drink it and lose or even find it helpful.
I don't agree with the frequent advice that you should change your diet as little as possible when starting a weight loss plan, since for me it's motivating to see myself doing something positive, and some of the bigger changes go along with that, so I can see that side.
But, on the other hand, if I had added on to my dietary changes when I started a requirement that I also drop coffee--which happens to be something I can use in place of how I used to use food, as a break, a relaxing taste treat, whatever--I would have made this harder for myself and deprived myself of something I enjoy, for no reason. I actually made the call when I started that I wasn't going to worry about coffee until I was really comfortable with my eating. (And now that I'm close to goal I'm messing with it and might drop it for a while.)
Similarly, I like to give up foods as part of my Lent practices, usually meat plus sweets. This time I did not (I started losing weight last January, so was still somewhat in the early stages), in part because I don't want my practices to relate to weight loss efforts, but more because I thought adding things would make it more difficult than it needed to be when I mostly wanted my diet to feel natural and enjoyable. This year I might well go back to my usual.
So I do think that sometimes newbies to MFP seem to be doing too much at once and adding difficulties that are not necessary (if you really miss diet coke and end up having more trouble not overeating cookies, that's not helpful). However, that's going to depend on the person, so I think it's both useful to present the "you don't have to" ideas to OP and challenge things like "aspartame will KILL you TOMORROW and make you FAT" (not said by OP, of course) and also to respect her decision and answer her question."
Oh, my goodness, HOW MEAN! Guess I was disrespectful and scared the newbies right off MFP.
Shaking head.
If someone can't enter into an actual discussion on topics like this, they really should not be on the internet.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Not an ad hominem at all. There are people on this site (I'm not speaking of you since I haven't seen enough of your posts before this thread to evaluate) who I suspect just read every thread waiting for someone to ask for advice on how to stop eating this or drinking that so that they can immediately rush in to say "why are you doing that?", "do you have a medical condition?", "there is no reason to stop eating that", "oh your doctor told your son to cut that out...then you need a new doctor".EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Calling it devil, toxic and poison is.MoiAussi93 wrote: »LOL! No, it is not the same thing.
Many experts in the field believe sugar IS addictive. And even if the matter isn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt yet, talking about a food...or substance of any kind...potentially being addictive is hardly calling it "the devil". Again, this is what I mean by extreme language. All it does is promote a flame war, and it helps nobody. Discussing rationally is always a much better option. Some people here are incapable, or just unwilling, unfortunately.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1072909/toxic-sugar-lustig-taubes
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1432905/giving-up-sugar-weekdays-only
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1078847/sugar-toxic-to-mice-in-small-doses
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1408160/sugar-is-the-new-devil
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1217191/sugar-is-the-devil
Correcting or complaining about someone's grammar or spelling is already a violation here. I wonder if the new owners will expand that to being a pedant and taking everything people say literally instead of as expressions of speech.
Seriously. I really don't understand why some people get so sensitive when someone criticizes things they like.
Ah, yeah, when you can't address the content, nothing like trying to undermine the messenger. It's a weak and unsubtle attempt of ad hominem - now the people that show you that in fact "devil, toxic and poison" is used on the forum are labeled "pedantic" and "so sensitive".
I don't care if it is called the great destroyer, Beelzebub or what not - but it clearly is. Saying it doesn't happen is just false.
C'mon, you can do better than that.
When the usual suspects join in, I sometimes chuckle to myself and imagine the first sugar/soda/artificial sweetener/whatever defender to spot the thread sent out a "bat signal" to summon reinforcements. Yes, I have a strange sense of humor but it works for me! LOL!
There is no reason for this angry reaction. It seriously does seem to me they are overly sensitive and somehow view the idea of somebody else making different health choices than they have as somehow invalidating their own choices. It doesn't, of course.
Whether you are addressing the "sensitivity" towards me or the unnamed masses of imaginary IIFYM "sensitive" troops (and now "angry" and in collusion) qualifying them as such is an ad hominem. You criticism addresses the individuals and not whatever content is being presented.
Why are you doing x? - its a reasonable question.
Do you have a specific medical condition that warrants (reduction in carbs, salt, iron, sugar)? is also a reasonable question.
The underlying question should be - is what you are doing, aligned effectively with your goals? And those questions make sense to help address that.
Do people over react and just blurt out things on this site? Absolutely, but that's just the flavor of the place. (I don't understand why you are so sensitive about this and feel so attacked - see what I did there?
)
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, here we are. Here's what I said to the OP in the soda thread:
Laurend224 wrote:
"People make it so much harder than it has to be."
I responded: "Agreed.
But my answer is iced tea. I like chilling the herbal kind."
And then a few posts later:
"I think if she wants to give it up she should. Some people probably feel better not drinking it, especially if they seem to drink it to the exclusion of everything else. I give up coffee from time to time since I can get into a pattern of going overboard with it (right now I'm trying not to drink coffee or caffeinated tea after noon and it's driving me a bit crazy, since I was overdoing it).
However, sometimes people think they ought to give up something instead of really wanting to, and diet soda is one of those things where you hear that it's poison or making you fat or silly things that are not true. If people are giving it up for those reasons, and not more factual ones, they might want to know that it's not necessary--for example, that lots of people are able to drink it and lose or even find it helpful.
I don't agree with the frequent advice that you should change your diet as little as possible when starting a weight loss plan, since for me it's motivating to see myself doing something positive, and some of the bigger changes go along with that, so I can see that side.
But, on the other hand, if I had added on to my dietary changes when I started a requirement that I also drop coffee--which happens to be something I can use in place of how I used to use food, as a break, a relaxing taste treat, whatever--I would have made this harder for myself and deprived myself of something I enjoy, for no reason. I actually made the call when I started that I wasn't going to worry about coffee until I was really comfortable with my eating. (And now that I'm close to goal I'm messing with it and might drop it for a while.)
Similarly, I like to give up foods as part of my Lent practices, usually meat plus sweets. This time I did not (I started losing weight last January, so was still somewhat in the early stages), in part because I don't want my practices to relate to weight loss efforts, but more because I thought adding things would make it more difficult than it needed to be when I mostly wanted my diet to feel natural and enjoyable. This year I might well go back to my usual.
So I do think that sometimes newbies to MFP seem to be doing too much at once and adding difficulties that are not necessary (if you really miss diet coke and end up having more trouble not overeating cookies, that's not helpful). However, that's going to depend on the person, so I think it's both useful to present the "you don't have to" ideas to OP and challenge things like "aspartame will KILL you TOMORROW and make you FAT" (not said by OP, of course) and also to respect her decision and answer her question."
Oh, my goodness, HOW MEAN! Guess I was disrespectful and scared the newbies right off MFP.
Shaking head.
If someone can't enter into an actual discussion on topics like this, they really should not be on the internet.
Providing information is the new mean. Adults should just know stuff, don't you know?
0 -
Lemurcat, I never called you mean or disrespectful...I didn't use those words (certainly not mean, at least) to describe anyone else either. My comments are not about one specific person, they are general.
There are absolutely people on this site who constantly grill people and tell them that eliminating things will set them up to fail. Happens every day!!! And as I have already said several times, just because some people failed doing that does not mean that everybody does. For some, that is the only way to succeed. If somebody decides that is the way to go for them, I do find it disrespectful to challenge that.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, here we are. Here's what I said to the OP in the soda thread:
Laurend224 wrote:
"People make it so much harder than it has to be."
I responded: "Agreed.
But my answer is iced tea. I like chilling the herbal kind."
And then a few posts later:
"I think if she wants to give it up she should. Some people probably feel better not drinking it, especially if they seem to drink it to the exclusion of everything else. I give up coffee from time to time since I can get into a pattern of going overboard with it (right now I'm trying not to drink coffee or caffeinated tea after noon and it's driving me a bit crazy, since I was overdoing it).
However, sometimes people think they ought to give up something instead of really wanting to, and diet soda is one of those things where you hear that it's poison or making you fat or silly things that are not true. If people are giving it up for those reasons, and not more factual ones, they might want to know that it's not necessary--for example, that lots of people are able to drink it and lose or even find it helpful.
I don't agree with the frequent advice that you should change your diet as little as possible when starting a weight loss plan, since for me it's motivating to see myself doing something positive, and some of the bigger changes go along with that, so I can see that side.
But, on the other hand, if I had added on to my dietary changes when I started a requirement that I also drop coffee--which happens to be something I can use in place of how I used to use food, as a break, a relaxing taste treat, whatever--I would have made this harder for myself and deprived myself of something I enjoy, for no reason. I actually made the call when I started that I wasn't going to worry about coffee until I was really comfortable with my eating. (And now that I'm close to goal I'm messing with it and might drop it for a while.)
Similarly, I like to give up foods as part of my Lent practices, usually meat plus sweets. This time I did not (I started losing weight last January, so was still somewhat in the early stages), in part because I don't want my practices to relate to weight loss efforts, but more because I thought adding things would make it more difficult than it needed to be when I mostly wanted my diet to feel natural and enjoyable. This year I might well go back to my usual.
So I do think that sometimes newbies to MFP seem to be doing too much at once and adding difficulties that are not necessary (if you really miss diet coke and end up having more trouble not overeating cookies, that's not helpful). However, that's going to depend on the person, so I think it's both useful to present the "you don't have to" ideas to OP and challenge things like "aspartame will KILL you TOMORROW and make you FAT" (not said by OP, of course) and also to respect her decision and answer her question."
Oh, my goodness, HOW MEAN! Guess I was disrespectful and scared the newbies right off MFP.
Shaking head.
If someone can't enter into an actual discussion on topics like this, they really should not be on the internet.
Providing information is the new mean. Adults should just know stuff, don't you know?
It's actually an excellent post, thanks for bringing it here.
And the whole "what changes should someone make" when starting out really does point out to different strategies and personalities. (it's all in the context)
- for some, large visible changes help confirm that a vast undertaking is underway and are great reinforcement
- for others, these large changes make it complicated and difficult to follow, leading to frustration (I did all these things and only lost 2 lbs the first week *rage quit*)
- abnegation may be a fantastic motivator initially as it allows for a sense of control.
So individual context matters. But it also brings us full circle into looking at which practices are more prevalent, what results generally are more successful as starting guidelines - hence the research and studies that I linked in the beginning - your own personal mileage might vary - but some learnings may influence how we attempt to aid others online and off from the attitudes we see in research.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, here we are. Here's what I said to the OP in the soda thread:
Laurend224 wrote:
"People make it so much harder than it has to be."
I responded: "Agreed.
But my answer is iced tea. I like chilling the herbal kind."
And then a few posts later:
"I think if she wants to give it up she should. Some people probably feel better not drinking it, especially if they seem to drink it to the exclusion of everything else. I give up coffee from time to time since I can get into a pattern of going overboard with it (right now I'm trying not to drink coffee or caffeinated tea after noon and it's driving me a bit crazy, since I was overdoing it).
However, sometimes people think they ought to give up something instead of really wanting to, and diet soda is one of those things where you hear that it's poison or making you fat or silly things that are not true. If people are giving it up for those reasons, and not more factual ones, they might want to know that it's not necessary--for example, that lots of people are able to drink it and lose or even find it helpful.
I don't agree with the frequent advice that you should change your diet as little as possible when starting a weight loss plan, since for me it's motivating to see myself doing something positive, and some of the bigger changes go along with that, so I can see that side.
But, on the other hand, if I had added on to my dietary changes when I started a requirement that I also drop coffee--which happens to be something I can use in place of how I used to use food, as a break, a relaxing taste treat, whatever--I would have made this harder for myself and deprived myself of something I enjoy, for no reason. I actually made the call when I started that I wasn't going to worry about coffee until I was really comfortable with my eating. (And now that I'm close to goal I'm messing with it and might drop it for a while.)
Similarly, I like to give up foods as part of my Lent practices, usually meat plus sweets. This time I did not (I started losing weight last January, so was still somewhat in the early stages), in part because I don't want my practices to relate to weight loss efforts, but more because I thought adding things would make it more difficult than it needed to be when I mostly wanted my diet to feel natural and enjoyable. This year I might well go back to my usual.
So I do think that sometimes newbies to MFP seem to be doing too much at once and adding difficulties that are not necessary (if you really miss diet coke and end up having more trouble not overeating cookies, that's not helpful). However, that's going to depend on the person, so I think it's both useful to present the "you don't have to" ideas to OP and challenge things like "aspartame will KILL you TOMORROW and make you FAT" (not said by OP, of course) and also to respect her decision and answer her question."
Oh, my goodness, HOW MEAN! Guess I was disrespectful and scared the newbies right off MFP.
Shaking head.
If someone can't enter into an actual discussion on topics like this, they really should not be on the internet.
Providing information is the new mean. Adults should just know stuff, don't you know?
It's actually an excellent post, thanks for bringing it here.
And the whole "what changes should someone make" when starting out really does point out to different strategies and personalities. (it's all in the context)
- for some, large visible changes help confirm that a vast undertaking is underway and are great reinforcement
- for others, these large changes make it complicated and difficult to follow, leading to frustration (I did all these things and only lost 2 lbs the first week *rage quit*)
- abnegation may be a fantastic motivator initially as it allows for a sense of control.
So individual context matters. But it also brings us full circle into looking at which practices are more prevalent, what results generally are more successful as starting guidelines - hence the research and studies that I linked in the beginning - your own personal mileage might vary - but some learnings may influence how we attempt to aid others online and off from the attitudes we see in research.
I very much agree that it comes down to personality. I suspect that's why these threads get so heated - each person is convinced that the only way that worked for them must be the only way for most people. They usually fought to get to that place of knowledge (of their own personal experience) and want to defend it (along with helping others if they can).0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »So, what the study seems to be saying is that a flexible diet works and woo woo diets based on exclusion and bizarre eating patterns do not work, provided you don't have a diagnosed medical condition like coeliacs or peanut allergy.
Also, no-one has been able to offer any counter this other than 'dem feels'.
I'll offer you a counter: For every person diagnosed there might be many walking around with allergies or other issues affected by food who don't know it yet. Also, medical science is not a done deal, so more ailments affected by food may be discovered in the future.
Meanwhile, I know this doesn't qualify as a research worthy experiment, but I'd be an idiot not to listen to my body and try to figure out what it wants in order to be healthy, happy, and energetic. It is my body, shabby little temple though it may be, and I have to live in it.
If being thin and eating healthy ever becomes the end goal instead of the means to an end though, I'm in trouble and better seek help. That's the last thing I want, that's no life, and I'm already sometimes aggravated about how much time and energy I put into it. Except when I'm having fun trying to learn nutrition, that I enjoy, difficult though it is for me.
So, basically 'dem feels'?
You totally ignored the first part of my post in favor of mocking me, but for what? For going by how I feel after I eat certain foods? Mock away, then. I'm still going to do it. And I'm going to do my best to figure out exactly what foods make me feel the best.
Edit: By the way, if that ever turns out to be pop tarts, I'm going to eat them every day.
No I didn't. If you feel ill when you eat a food you go to the doctor. That either turns a subjective view into an objective diagnosis or it turns out it wasn't the food. If you believe certain foods are bad for you in absence of any medical evidence, it's probably psychosomatic.
Which is 'dem feels'. Anecdotes about food are all very well, but we know people can convince themselves that certain foods make them ill when the reality is that the problem is entirely in their heads. If you want an objective view then you study it, remove the confounding variables, and come to a conclusion, which is what the report did.
Yes, because everyone can afford a doctor and bloodwork whenever they suspect they might have negative reactions to some foods.
And again, when was the cause of celiac disease discovered? So by your logic the suffering of all celiacs was psychosomatic prior to the recognition of the role of gluten in the disease?
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. Plus if you're ill enough you'll find the money. Coeliac's has been known about since ancient Grecian times - the word coeliac comes from the Greek for abdominal.
We could do this indefinitely, but the fact remains: unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, exclusion diets are more likely to fail according to this study.
I live in the USA, and no, I won't find the money. Besides, what if I try a new food and break out in hives. Should I rush to the doctor ask her to hold my hand and take my bloodwork or just avoid that food?
No really though, I don't disagree, I will go get some bloodwork done when I can afford it. There is no finding the money, though.
Meanwhile, the cause of celiac disease was not known until the 20th century.
We aren't going to bicker indefinitely because I know from your other posts you are smart. You know perfectly well that just because medical science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I know perfectly well that when a new discovery is made regarding disease and causes of the disease, a lot of people are going to attribute their problems falsely to it. Because that's just dem humans being humans.
As you'll see from my edit, we knew coeliacs was a real problem for a very long time. In addition, change of diet was long recommended before gluten was identified as a culprit in the mid 20th century. So, not psychosomatic at all - it was very real disease with a very real solution; change of diet (Dr Haas' infamous banana diet as one example).
However, we now have immunological and antibody testing, which makes specific agent identification a lot easier, which is why it is correct to say that most eating disorders where no reaction is observed using immunological screening are, in fact, psychosomatic. Sure, there may be some unknowns out there, but this has become increasingly unlikely given we can analyse to molecular level now.
Which is why, unless it can be proven that a reaction to food is on a medical ground - such as an inability to absorb gluten effectively in people with Coeliac to the anaphylactic reaction of people with nut allergies - it is a pretty safe bet to say that it's psychosomatic not real.
Hence, 'dem feels'.
"It is a pretty safe bet". You saved yourself with that. But it's also an example of dem feels. You feel (and even I do, to some extent) that a lot of people have a tendency toward psychosomatic symptoms. That does not invalidate those who have figured out certain foods don't agree with them in truth, whether a doctor says so or even knows so or not. I want to be one of those people. I'm no more interested in playing headgames with myself than you are in hearing about people's headgames.
Edit: Come to think of it, I don't think you'd try to argue that 1000 calories of cake and 1000 calories of nuts, seeds, and vegetables are equally good foods prior to, for example, running a marathon. So when I work to eat foods that give me energy and try to avoid foods that cause me to be lethargic, what is the problem?
Mood of course is a more complex issue.
Again, the point is that, given the current state of molecular testing, it is highly unlikely that there are food group intolerances we are not aware of. Not impossible, but so unlikely that the probability becomes vanishing. That's quite different from 'dem feels' which is a belief in absence of proof.
However, we are way off the beaten track here, because the study's findings were that generally flexible dieting yields superior results to restrictive dieting in the general population. Granted, there may be a few exceptions to this, for known - and even, I'll concede - unknown reasons, but that's getting into special pleading territory.
So I'm quite comfortable in saying that, whilst there may be some very few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of the population would do better on a flexible diet, not a restrictive - in terms of food, not calories - diet.
They're just starting to learn about diabetes at the cellular level, so unless I misunderstand (very possible, science isn't unfortunately my background) there is plenty of room to learn more, especially regarding complex interactions, not to mention the epigenome which is really unexplored right now.
Meanwhile, I'm still not going to shovel cake in my face and expect to do my best time in a run, so why should I shove cake in my face and expect to have the same energy levels and feeling of wellbeing as shoving meats and veggies in my face?
That misses the point. We already know what diabetes is and how to treat it. Sure, more information on genetic susceptibility is welcome, but it won't tell us much more on how to avoid it or treat it.
But again, this is special pleading.
I don't see how it follows that it won't tell us more about how to avoid or treat it. And again, are you actually advocating a calorie is a calorie for health and wellbeing and energy and not just for simple weight loss or gain? Really? You can't be.
No. Hence the use of the term 'flexible'.
Hey, I'm flexible. I prefer grass fed beef, but I'm not turning my nose up at cornfed prime rib, ever!
Weren't you a vegan just a little bit ago? I'm not objecting--I'm a meat-eater myself--but you seem more gleeful in your meat eating than I would expect given that.
Just curious.
(Anyway, I happen to agree with your statement above.)
No, I was a vegan for several months last year. Got too hungry at some point, not sure why. Didn't change anything. Just started feeling ravenous. I fought it for awhile, but I gained weight. So I went back to low carb (which I'd done before and found easiest for appetite control) and here I am.
Might not be in ketosis this weekend, though. Family curry feast. I won't stress it. I'll be biking and hiking all weekend. So I can be flexible. Just not about some things. Like chocolate cake. I don't feel like dealing with the aftermath at all!
So basically you are a flexible eater with certain medical criteria. You've tried some severe restriction and found that it wasn't a successful path. Sounds a lot like the the start of the thread.
Yes probably, but I can't go get diagnosed with anything right now even if a doctor could make a diagnosis, which I wonder. So the people who say unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, while many are well meaning, kind of irritate me! I don't need someone with a PhD to tell me when I eat certain foods I feel crappy, though I'd be glad if one could tell me why and label it if possible.
And I do appreciate your thread because it has still been helpful. It has me thinking about energy levels as the engine that drives our moods. I'm still gnawing on the other thread mentioning temporary euphoria from entering ketosis in that light, though. I could try carb cycling with specific high carb foods, but it seems to me that chasing a natural high that wears off can be an issue too. And who knows if the research is even accurate on the whole GHB low carb effect? It's definitely interesting, though.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Oh, yes! Certain people get seriously offended if somebody limits an unhealthy food without a deadly allergy or terrible disease an as "excuse".Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I'm aware that everyone limits foods, that was not my point. My point was that PLENTY of people take issue with others limiting foods.
It's like they expect you to bring a doctor note to justify turning down a cupcake. I would find their anger amusing if I didn't worry that their vitriol was driving away people who would otherwise get a lot out of this site.
Haha a doctor's note. Yeah, I love the way you put this!
Edit: I have a car. It's the only car I will ever have and none of the mechanics know half of what they really need to know to fix it and they cost a fortune to even consult with on the sound the engine makes.
So quit trying to tell me it's okay to put sugar in the gas tank when every time I do, my car runs like crap!0 -
Yeah I mean for me, if I have two days in a row with fast food meals (or packaged "junk" like potato chips) in them, it's a quick slide into a week or more of it (going over calories). Whether that's down to some biochemical process or a slip back into learned habits (because it's so much more convenient to just buy already prepared food), I don't know, but I do know that pragmatically, that's what happens with me. Even that one meal inclines me to choose another like it.
Therefore, if I do have a poutine or a cheeseburger or chips & dip or whatever crap I first got into as a teen (because yes, a
is crap, low-value food, in and of itself, no doubt about it), I try to make sure the very next meals are ones I cook myself.
Or if I buy food out, that it's less fat/salt/sugar-tastic. That combination is well-known by food scientists to trigger "moreness". That's why they make the foods they make, and that's why those foods make their employers serious money.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions