"Clean" or Flexible Eating - food for thought?
Replies
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Now, if I started a thread about how HARD it is not to eat bread (it's not, I don't most bread that much, although there are exceptions), I'd fully expect people to ask me why I wasn't eating it then or to tell me I can fit it in to a healthy diet. I'd think that was appropriate and why people get upset by stuff like that I don't get.
Reflecting on the choice of the word hard. I think maybe that's part of the key to long-term success, it's getting to a place where your style of eating is not particularly hard. Flexible dieting with being careful about certain types of carbohydrates is not hard for me. I eat a lot of whole foods and look at my macro balance, it all fits who I am as a person. I want to be able to eat out with friends have have a pasta dish and a portion of a dessert. I can fit these things in. I don't necessarily have them every day because there are lots of other foods that I love that work better with insulin resistance/my history of problematic cravings/overeating.
There is a sense of security in yourself and your ability to manage food that underlies a more flexible way of eating. I can overdo it on dessert one day, and I might even have more cravings if I do so for several days in a row, but I know that I can get back on track so it's something to be aware of but not something to be afraid of.
I believe this is very much the crux of things.
Whether IIFYM, clean, paleo, vegan or what not, as long as it is effortless (or the effort is valued as being significantly less than the return) then it is easier to maintain. If your posting on the boards on how HARD it is to do x, y or z, it becomes reasonable to question why you bother to do something that just isn't fitting in. Perhaps it will fit later, perhaps other learnings need to take place, or perhaps it is a lifestyle that will never fit. I, for one, will never be vegan - it doesn't mean I don't respect the choices that are made.
I'm a non-cucumber, non-capers and non-brains eating, non-soda drinking flexitarian. I am concerned that my calorie restriction affects performance, mood and overall energy levels and part of the post is also related to that.
Any sort of system where you have to limit what you eat, whether it is volume and/or content, is hard. IIFYM, while simple to do, is still hard, because it limits your calories and macros maximums - it is a pain to keep track and to live within those limits at times. Being fat is a cinch in terms of execution - just eat what you want, what you want, as much as you want.
Being in shape is hard, but it is a chore that brings happiness. I love the results, I'm actually addicted to the results of eating and exercising the way that I do, so it is a "hard" endeavor that is akin to the "hard" of being a parent, a labor of love.
It is when the hard work makes you miserable, that is where the dysfunction comes in, and it is time to switch your methodology0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »My point was that PLENTY of people take issue with others limiting foods.
I don't think that's particularly common. I think you are misinterpreting what is being argued.
Someone posts "I need to cut sugar"
Multiple replies of "There is no reason to cut sugar" "Sugar is not the debil" "So, you're never going to eat fruit or vegetables, good luck with that" and so on.
But perhaps it is I that is misinterpreting. Those responses could mean so many things.
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.
No one gets put out about "limiting". It's eliminating entirely that raises the firestorm.
And frankly, the willful misunderstanding of moderation by elimination extremists is quite tiring.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Now, if I started a thread about how HARD it is not to eat bread (it's not, I don't most bread that much, although there are exceptions), I'd fully expect people to ask me why I wasn't eating it then or to tell me I can fit it in to a healthy diet. I'd think that was appropriate and why people get upset by stuff like that I don't get.
Reflecting on the choice of the word hard. I think maybe that's part of the key to long-term success, it's getting to a place where your style of eating is not particularly hard. Flexible dieting with being careful about certain types of carbohydrates is not hard for me. I eat a lot of whole foods and look at my macro balance, it all fits who I am as a person. I want to be able to eat out with friends have have a pasta dish and a portion of a dessert. I can fit these things in. I don't necessarily have them every day because there are lots of other foods that I love that work better with insulin resistance/my history of problematic cravings/overeating.
There is a sense of security in yourself and your ability to manage food that underlies a more flexible way of eating. I can overdo it on dessert one day, and I might even have more cravings if I do so for several days in a row, but I know that I can get back on track so it's something to be aware of but not something to be afraid of.
I believe this is very much the crux of things.
Whether IIFYM, clean, paleo, vegan or what not, as long as it is effortless (or the effort is valued as being significantly less than the return) then it is easier to maintain. If your posting on the boards on how HARD it is to do x, y or z, it becomes reasonable to question why you bother to do something that just isn't fitting in. Perhaps it will fit later, perhaps other learnings need to take place, or perhaps it is a lifestyle that will never fit. I, for one, will never be vegan - it doesn't mean I don't respect the choices that are made.
I'm a non-cucumber, non-capers and non-brains eating, non-soda drinking flexitarian. I am concerned that my calorie restriction affects performance, mood and overall energy levels and part of the post is also related to that.
Any sort of system where you have to limit what you eat, whether it is volume and/or content, is hard. IIFYM, while simple to do, is still hard, because it limits your calories and macros maximums - it is a pain to keep track and to live within those limits at times. Being fat is a cinch in terms of execution - just eat what you want, what you want, as much as you want.
Being in shape is hard, but it is a chore that brings happiness. I love the results, I'm actually addicted to the results of eating and exercising the way that I do, so it is a "hard" endeavor that is akin to the "hard" of being a parent, a labor of love.
It is when the hard work makes you miserable, that is where the dysfunction comes in, and it is time to switch your methodology
I get what you are saying. It takes effort and time surely, but is it hard? I think we might have different definitions.
When I go bouldering and hit a wall at the limit of my ability, any misstep, and small failure and boom, I'm down. I can hit the same passage 5/6/10 times and still not get it - takes weeks and still fail. That's hard. The slough of recording my food and not going over board is just work. It needs to be done. But it isn't any harder than brushing my teeth.
Staying focused consistently for x months - yeah, ok, that's a bit harder.
0 -
Oh, many people get put out by people limiting. And why do you care if someone wants to eliminate? Why should that raise a "firestorm"? Your word choice, but I agree that is fits very well.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No one gets put out about "limiting". It's eliminating entirely that raises the firestorm.
And frankly, the willful misunderstanding of moderation by elimination extremists is quite tiring.
There is no need to eat the things most people want to limit or eliminate. No harm is done by not eating junk food. So to try to talk people out of it is just irresponsible.
"elimination extremists"? Seriously? I would hardly call a person trying to drink water instead of soda...which any serious person would agree is a healthy decision...an extremist. It is exactly that type of language that is the problem.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Oh, many people get put out by people limiting. And why do you care if someone wants to eliminate? Why should that raise a "firestorm"? Your word choice, but I agree that is fits very well.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No one gets put out about "limiting". It's eliminating entirely that raises the firestorm.
And frankly, the willful misunderstanding of moderation by elimination extremists is quite tiring.
There is no need to eat the things most people want to limit or eliminate. No harm is done by not eating junk food. So to try to talk people out of it is just irresponsible.
"elimination extremists"? Seriously? I would hardly call a person trying to drink water instead of soda...which any serious person would agree is a healthy decision...an extremist. It is exactly that type of language that is the problem.
You know, there is a thread right now about starting a C25K program. The person is asking for how much weight people lose with it. These are great exercise programs but they aren't about weight loss. I wouldn't discourage someone from doing it (quite the contrary), but I would point out that if weight loss is their primary concern than that's not the best focus of their effort.
Same goes for diet soda. Especially if someone is saying, "it's so hard". Remove it if you like, but are you sure that it is were you want to focus first?
Meal timing, breakfast, etc., etc., etc. a lot of people do not even see the majors.
Any strategy for success if done first by addressing the most influential factors.
I see you decided not to address the study content of the OP.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Oh, many people get put out by people limiting. And why do you care if someone wants to eliminate? Why should that raise a "firestorm"? Your word choice, but I agree that is fits very well.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No one gets put out about "limiting". It's eliminating entirely that raises the firestorm.
And frankly, the willful misunderstanding of moderation by elimination extremists is quite tiring.
There is no need to eat the things most people want to limit or eliminate. No harm is done by not eating junk food. So to try to talk people out of it is just irresponsible.
"elimination extremists"? Seriously? I would hardly call a person trying to drink water instead of soda...which any serious person would agree is a healthy decision...an extremist. It is exactly that type of language that is the problem.
Yep, pretty much this.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »My point was that PLENTY of people take issue with others limiting foods.
I don't think that's particularly common. I think you are misinterpreting what is being argued.
Someone posts "I need to cut sugar"
Multiple replies of "There is no reason to cut sugar" "Sugar is not the debil" "So, you're never going to eat fruit or vegetables, good luck with that" and so on.
But perhaps it is I that is misinterpreting. Those responses could mean so many things.
There's a thread like that now, and I thought what happened was really obvious. "I need to cut sugar" can mean "I need to reduce sugar" or "I need to cut out all sugar." At MFP--no argument from me--someone saying she *needs* to eliminate some item without giving a reason will get questioned or told it's not necessary. Someone saying she needs to cut down is a different story. But maybe I'm wrong--I posted the same thing in that thread, so if someone disagrees with me, you will be right.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No one gets put out about "limiting". It's eliminating entirely that raises the firestorm.
And frankly, the willful misunderstanding of moderation by elimination extremists is quite tiring.
This!
I agree that some moderates get a little over the top with the "you don't have to eliminate stuff" argument from time to time, and I can see why that would be a little annoying to someone who was happily doing paleo or low carb or whatever for her own reasons.
But I think that's far less annoying than the constant claims by "clean" eaters (who don't really eat any "cleaner" than anyone else, of course) that "moderation" means eating Twinkies and KFC for every meal, which is just a bizarre and offensive straw man, yet reasonably common.
(As is the claim that sugar is the devil, which is why I personally mock it from time to time.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »My point was that PLENTY of people take issue with others limiting foods.
I don't think that's particularly common. I think you are misinterpreting what is being argued.
Someone posts "I need to cut sugar"
Multiple replies of "There is no reason to cut sugar" "Sugar is not the debil" "So, you're never going to eat fruit or vegetables, good luck with that" and so on.
But perhaps it is I that is misinterpreting. Those responses could mean so many things.
There's a thread like that now, and I thought what happened was really obvious. "I need to cut sugar" can mean "I need to reduce sugar" or "I need to cut out all sugar." At MFP--no argument from me--someone saying she *needs* to eliminate some item without giving a reason will get questioned or told it's not necessary. Someone saying she needs to cut down is a different story. But maybe I'm wrong--I posted the same thing in that thread, so if someone disagrees with me, you will be right.
Yes, it's all flowers and rainbows when you talk about limiting sugar. Let's not hijack this thread any longer. I was wrong.0 -
I almost never see people who have restricted or eliminated sugar claim that sugar is the devil.lemurcat12 wrote: »I agree that some moderates get a little over the top with the "you don't have to eliminate stuff" argument from time to time, and I can see why that would be a little annoying to someone who was happily doing paleo or low carb or whatever for her own reasons.
But I think that's far less annoying than the constant claims by "clean" eaters (who don't really eat any "cleaner" than anyone else, of course) that "moderation" means eating Twinkies and KFC for every meal, which is just a bizarre and offensive straw man, yet reasonably common.
(As is the claim that sugar is the devil, which is why I personally mock it from time to time.)
I HAVE seen many people who hate the idea of restricting any food immediately mock those who don't eat it by calling them the "sugar is the devil" crowd. That mocking is not helpful. If it amuses you, great. But it is counterproductive if your goal is a real discussion.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
No one gets put out about "limiting". It's eliminating entirely that raises the firestorm.
And frankly, the willful misunderstanding of moderation by elimination extremists is quite tiring.
This!
I agree that some moderates get a little over the top with the "you don't have to eliminate stuff" argument from time to time, and I can see why that would be a little annoying to someone who was happily doing paleo or low carb or whatever for her own reasons.
But I think that's far less annoying than the constant claims by "clean" eaters (who don't really eat any "cleaner" than anyone else, of course) that "moderation" means eating Twinkies and KFC for every meal, which is just a bizarre and offensive straw man, yet reasonably common.
(As is the claim that sugar is the devil, which is why I personally mock it from time to time.)
I've seen one person who is fond of "twinkies" in arguments. I've seen quite a few more who assume, rather than ask, when someone asks about cutting, that they mean absolutely eliminating instead of reducing. The aforementioned sugar thread even has one. They're about as helpful as the ones who wander around insisting people who do LCHF eat zero carbs or fruit. Apparently on their planet, the blackberries I had last night are carb free vegetables. A lot would be accomplished if, instead of people's first instinct being to argue with someone and tell them how wrong they are, it was to offer advice with qualifications if they feel it absolutely necessary.
The difference between "drink more water and less soda, if you're trying to cut back, though you can't really eliminate it completely" vs "why on earth do you want to give up sugar? There's no reason unless a doctor tells you to!"0 -
still debating the merits of clean eating vs flexible dieting I see ...
lets just say this ...clean eating is 100% unnecessary for weight loss..period, end of story, end thread..
glad I could settle it for you all ...0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I almost never see people who have restricted or eliminated sugar claim that sugar is the devil.lemurcat12 wrote: »I agree that some moderates get a little over the top with the "you don't have to eliminate stuff" argument from time to time, and I can see why that would be a little annoying to someone who was happily doing paleo or low carb or whatever for her own reasons.
But I think that's far less annoying than the constant claims by "clean" eaters (who don't really eat any "cleaner" than anyone else, of course) that "moderation" means eating Twinkies and KFC for every meal, which is just a bizarre and offensive straw man, yet reasonably common.
(As is the claim that sugar is the devil, which is why I personally mock it from time to time.)
I HAVE seen many people who hate the idea of restricting any food immediately mock those who don't eat it by calling them the "sugar is the devil" crowd. That mocking is not helpful. If it amuses you, great. But it is counterproductive if your goal is a real discussion.
you obviously missed the "sugar is heroin" comparisons that go round and round on here...
0 -
So much for end of thread...0
-
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
never claimed it was...but hey, nit pick away because that is what you do...0 -
Here's a thought about the high emotion relating to food and our tendency to label food as either "clean" or "disgusting". Perhaps we are using an adaptive emotion that Haidt identifies as "disgust".
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/disgustscale.html
Taken too far I believe would lead to disordered behaviors around food.
I mean, taken to the extreme, would the clean foodist need to grow all their own food? No more than five ingredients per creation? Mostly raw? I am sure one could lose weight that way. Maybe a little sanity too. And a good part of the population would be excluded from that sort of fastidiousness.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Now, if I started a thread about how HARD it is not to eat bread (it's not, I don't most bread that much, although there are exceptions), I'd fully expect people to ask me why I wasn't eating it then or to tell me I can fit it in to a healthy diet. I'd think that was appropriate and why people get upset by stuff like that I don't get.
Reflecting on the choice of the word hard. I think maybe that's part of the key to long-term success, it's getting to a place where your style of eating is not particularly hard. Flexible dieting with being careful about certain types of carbohydrates is not hard for me. I eat a lot of whole foods and look at my macro balance, it all fits who I am as a person. I want to be able to eat out with friends have have a pasta dish and a portion of a dessert. I can fit these things in. I don't necessarily have them every day because there are lots of other foods that I love that work better with insulin resistance/my history of problematic cravings/overeating.
There is a sense of security in yourself and your ability to manage food that underlies a more flexible way of eating. I can overdo it on dessert one day, and I might even have more cravings if I do so for several days in a row, but I know that I can get back on track so it's something to be aware of but not something to be afraid of.
I believe this is very much the crux of things.
Whether IIFYM, clean, paleo, vegan or what not, as long as it is effortless (or the effort is valued as being significantly less than the return) then it is easier to maintain. If your posting on the boards on how HARD it is to do x, y or z, it becomes reasonable to question why you bother to do something that just isn't fitting in. Perhaps it will fit later, perhaps other learnings need to take place, or perhaps it is a lifestyle that will never fit. I, for one, will never be vegan - it doesn't mean I don't respect the choices that are made.
I'm a non-cucumber, non-capers and non-brains eating, non-soda drinking flexitarian. I am concerned that my calorie restriction affects performance, mood and overall energy levels and part of the post is also related to that.
Any sort of system where you have to limit what you eat, whether it is volume and/or content, is hard. IIFYM, while simple to do, is still hard, because it limits your calories and macros maximums - it is a pain to keep track and to live within those limits at times. Being fat is a cinch in terms of execution - just eat what you want, what you want, as much as you want.
Being in shape is hard, but it is a chore that brings happiness. I love the results, I'm actually addicted to the results of eating and exercising the way that I do, so it is a "hard" endeavor that is akin to the "hard" of being a parent, a labor of love.
It is when the hard work makes you miserable, that is where the dysfunction comes in, and it is time to switch your methodology
I get what you are saying. It takes effort and time surely, but is it hard? I think we might have different definitions.
When I go bouldering and hit a wall at the limit of my ability, any misstep, and small failure and boom, I'm down. I can hit the same passage 5/6/10 times and still not get it - takes weeks and still fail. That's hard. The slough of recording my food and not going over board is just work. It needs to be done. But it isn't any harder than brushing my teeth.
Staying focused consistently for x months - yeah, ok, that's a bit harder.
Yeah, the consistency is hard. An individual instance of staying within your caloric / macros limits is not hard. Doing it every day (or most days) of your life over a period of hundreds of days, that is where it get hard.
Prior to going on MFP 600+ days ago, for the first 42 years of my life, my focus on dieting was pretty easy - what sounds good, okay, I'll eat that. Now i have to think it out - it takes about 15 minutes a day to track my diet, so over the course of 600 days that is 150 hours invested. This is a pretty significant sacrifice, not to mention the time and effort spent on the exercise element of fitness.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
never claimed it was...but hey, nit pick away because that is what you do...
Hmm, now I'm wondering what you cleared up or why your obvious remark would end the thread.0 -
That's a great movie!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
There is an old comedy movie, Sleeper, in which a health food store owner is frozen and wakes in the future..."healthy" foods like vegetables have been proven to be bad for you, and fat and junk food are now known to be good. There may be hope for cream cheese frosting!Nicely put. Someday researchers might realize that cake is a powerhouse cancer fighting longevity food, but until then, my life is much easier when I skip it. Although if they are going to discover this, I wish they'd do it soon. And I hope cream cheese frosting turns out to be the best combining agent for maximum absorption!
0 -
Here's a thought about the high emotion relating to food and our tendency to label food as either "clean" or "disgusting". Perhaps we are using an adaptive emotion that Haidt identifies as "disgust".
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/disgustscale.html
Taken too far I believe would lead to disordered behaviors around food.
I mean, taken to the extreme, would the clean foodist need to grow all their own food? No more than five ingredients per creation? Mostly raw? I am sure one could lose weight that way. Maybe a little sanity too. And a good part of the population would be excluded from that sort of fastidiousness.
I would LOVE to grow all my own food. I do grow most of it, but I'd have to eliminate a lot of things I like to grow it all. I'm glad to live in a time where I can combine foods from different climates with ease.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I almost never see people who have restricted or eliminated sugar claim that sugar is the devil.
There have been multiple non-ironic threads started with that topic and numerous other instances of people saying it unironically.
0 -
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Now, if I started a thread about how HARD it is not to eat bread (it's not, I don't most bread that much, although there are exceptions), I'd fully expect people to ask me why I wasn't eating it then or to tell me I can fit it in to a healthy diet. I'd think that was appropriate and why people get upset by stuff like that I don't get.
Reflecting on the choice of the word hard. I think maybe that's part of the key to long-term success, it's getting to a place where your style of eating is not particularly hard. Flexible dieting with being careful about certain types of carbohydrates is not hard for me. I eat a lot of whole foods and look at my macro balance, it all fits who I am as a person. I want to be able to eat out with friends have have a pasta dish and a portion of a dessert. I can fit these things in. I don't necessarily have them every day because there are lots of other foods that I love that work better with insulin resistance/my history of problematic cravings/overeating.
There is a sense of security in yourself and your ability to manage food that underlies a more flexible way of eating. I can overdo it on dessert one day, and I might even have more cravings if I do so for several days in a row, but I know that I can get back on track so it's something to be aware of but not something to be afraid of.
I believe this is very much the crux of things.
Whether IIFYM, clean, paleo, vegan or what not, as long as it is effortless (or the effort is valued as being significantly less than the return) then it is easier to maintain. If your posting on the boards on how HARD it is to do x, y or z, it becomes reasonable to question why you bother to do something that just isn't fitting in. Perhaps it will fit later, perhaps other learnings need to take place, or perhaps it is a lifestyle that will never fit. I, for one, will never be vegan - it doesn't mean I don't respect the choices that are made.
I'm a non-cucumber, non-capers and non-brains eating, non-soda drinking flexitarian. I am concerned that my calorie restriction affects performance, mood and overall energy levels and part of the post is also related to that.
Any sort of system where you have to limit what you eat, whether it is volume and/or content, is hard. IIFYM, while simple to do, is still hard, because it limits your calories and macros maximums - it is a pain to keep track and to live within those limits at times. Being fat is a cinch in terms of execution - just eat what you want, what you want, as much as you want.
Being in shape is hard, but it is a chore that brings happiness. I love the results, I'm actually addicted to the results of eating and exercising the way that I do, so it is a "hard" endeavor that is akin to the "hard" of being a parent, a labor of love.
It is when the hard work makes you miserable, that is where the dysfunction comes in, and it is time to switch your methodology
I get what you are saying. It takes effort and time surely, but is it hard? I think we might have different definitions.
When I go bouldering and hit a wall at the limit of my ability, any misstep, and small failure and boom, I'm down. I can hit the same passage 5/6/10 times and still not get it - takes weeks and still fail. That's hard. The slough of recording my food and not going over board is just work. It needs to be done. But it isn't any harder than brushing my teeth.
Staying focused consistently for x months - yeah, ok, that's a bit harder.
Yeah, the consistency is hard. An individual instance of staying within your caloric / macros limits is not hard. Doing it every day (or most days) of your life over a period of hundreds of days, that is where it get hard.
Prior to going on MFP 600+ days ago, for the first 42 years of my life, my focus on dieting was pretty easy - what sounds good, okay, I'll eat that. Now i have to think it out - it takes about 15 minutes a day to track my diet, so over the course of 600 days that is 150 hours invested. This is a pretty significant sacrifice, not to mention the time and effort spent on the exercise element of fitness.
Been here about 860 days - and I missed about 25 in there.
During the same period, I've been working on languages - German / Hebrew / Arabic and a few others. About 20 minutes a day, I've missed a lot more language lessons (except German which I'm hitting ok) than logging.
For me, language lessons, hitting the exercise plan has always been much harder than logging. There are people here who haven't missed an exercise day in a year. It would seem logical that it is less hard for them to stay consistent than a waffler like me.
0 -
Here's a thought about the high emotion relating to food and our tendency to label food as either "clean" or "disgusting". Perhaps we are using an adaptive emotion that Haidt identifies as "disgust".
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/disgustscale.html
Taken too far I believe would lead to disordered behaviors around food.
I mean, taken to the extreme, would the clean foodist need to grow all their own food? No more than five ingredients per creation? Mostly raw? I am sure one could lose weight that way. Maybe a little sanity too. And a good part of the population would be excluded from that sort of fastidiousness.
I like this. This is related to what I was getting at in my sex comparison upthread.0 -
Heck, if I had to eat what we could grow locally around here I'd be eating pemmican and rose hips all winter. Talk about Keto.
Had to follow the link to pemmican. Yeah, I suppose I could live off what I freeze, can and preserve, plus the root cellar for vegetables and fruit, but I am very glad I don't have to.0 -
Heck, if I had to eat what we could grow locally around here I'd be eating pemmican and rose hips all winter. Talk about Keto.
As I've mentioned before one of my extremist tendencies was a fascination with locavorism, and at one point I wanted to try a locavore challenge (which here, unsurprisingly, occurred in the summer). I kind of think it was partly that fascination that cured my somewhat over-the-top tendency toward "natural" eating (though I still like to eat seasonally and whole foods and all that where possible), once I started thinking through what that would entail here.
Now one thing I find bizarre about the anti-"processed" foods thing is whether one really thinks it would be healthier to exclude veggies here if they aren't available locally (or I don't happen to can them myself) or fish that's not locally caught or greek yogurt (since zoning laws and reality prevent me from owning a cow or even a goat, etc.).
I mean, clearly not, right?0 -
Can honestly say I haven't had a food yet that sets off my anxiety. Drinks on the other hand..... anything with high caffeine, guarana, rooibos etc will give me heart palpitations very quickly after consumption.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 436 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions