"Clean" or Flexible Eating - food for thought?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Apparently I have a very low proclivity to find things disgusting - perhaps that's why I'm flexible. Although I do have a bit of disgust for the jumping through hoops that raw macrobiotic followers do to justify the "purity and healthiness" of those diets.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.
No, drinking mostly water instead of mostly soda isn't extreme. Calling soda disgusting and soda drinking a filthy habit akin to cigarette smoking is. See the difference?
Probably not. That's where moderation comes in.
I've never seen anyone have a problem if someone asks that they'd like to cut back a bit on their intake of something without totally eliminating it. Then again, I've rarely seen anyone ask about not totally eliminating something without demonizing the substance they're after eliminating. And therein lies the problem.
@HappyCampr1 hit the nail on the head. The motivation is to see newbies succeed. It's not about pushing an IIFYM (I don't even follow IIFYM) agenda. It's about not imposing extraneous "rules" onto newbies that aren't necessary. So many people think they "need" to do things to lose weight. Being sure that they're not misinformed and burdened with false knowledge simplifies the task ahead of them.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Apparently I have a very low proclivity to find things disgusting - perhaps that's why I'm flexible. Although I do have a bit of disgust for the jumping through hoops that raw macrobiotic followers do to justify the "purity and healthiness" of those diets.
Slightly off-topic, but this book (Anatomy of Disgust): http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674031555 is by a former professor of mine. I find it pretty interesting, although I seem to recall some rather scathing reviews also.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.
As for sugar is the devil... aren't all the "addictive" threads close enough? Seriously?
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Apparently I have a very low proclivity to find things disgusting - perhaps that's why I'm flexible. Although I do have a bit of disgust for the jumping through hoops that raw macrobiotic followers do to justify the "purity and healthiness" of those diets.
I'm pretty much the same. Except I think Twinkies, boiled beets, and oysters are objectively disgusting too.
0 -
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.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
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.
No, drinking mostly water instead of mostly soda isn't extreme. Calling soda disgusting and soda drinking a filthy habit akin to cigarette smoking is. See the difference?
Probably not. That's where moderation comes in.
I've never seen anyone have a problem if someone asks that they'd like to cut back a bit on their intake of something without totally eliminating it. Then again, I've rarely seen anyone ask about not totally eliminating something without demonizing the substance they're after eliminating. And therein lies the problem.
@HappyCampr1 hit the nail on the head. The motivation is to see newbies succeed. It's not about pushing an IIFYM (I don't even follow IIFYM) agenda. It's about not imposing extraneous "rules" onto newbies that aren't necessary. So many people think they "need" to do things to lose weight. Being sure that they're not misinformed and burdened with false knowledge simplifies the task ahead of them.
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.
0 -
LOL! No, it is not the same thing.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I almost never see people who have restricted or eliminated sugar claim that sugar is the devil.
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.
As for sugar is the devil... aren't all the "addictive" threads close enough? Seriously?
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.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Many experts in the field believe sugar IS addictive.
Huh. Now there's a claim begging for confirmation.0 -
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.mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
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.
No, drinking mostly water instead of mostly soda isn't extreme. Calling soda disgusting and soda drinking a filthy habit akin to cigarette smoking is. See the difference?
Probably not. That's where moderation comes in.
I've never seen anyone have a problem if someone asks that they'd like to cut back a bit on their intake of something without totally eliminating it. Then again, I've rarely seen anyone ask about not totally eliminating something without demonizing the substance they're after eliminating. And therein lies the problem.
@HappyCampr1 hit the nail on the head. The motivation is to see newbies succeed. It's not about pushing an IIFYM (I don't even follow IIFYM) agenda. It's about not imposing extraneous "rules" onto newbies that aren't necessary. So many people think they "need" to do things to lose weight. Being sure that they're not misinformed and burdened with false knowledge simplifies the task ahead of them.
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.
0 -
Calling it devil, toxic and poison is.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
LOL! No, it is not the same thing.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I almost never see people who have restricted or eliminated sugar claim that sugar is the devil.
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.
As for sugar is the devil... aren't all the "addictive" threads close enough? Seriously?
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-devil0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
LOL! No, it is not the same thing.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I almost never see people who have restricted or eliminated sugar claim that sugar is the devil.
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.
As for sugar is the devil... aren't all the "addictive" threads close enough? Seriously?
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.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Calling it devil, toxic and poison is.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
LOL! No, it is not the same thing.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I almost never see people who have restricted or eliminated sugar claim that sugar is the devil.
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.
As for sugar is the devil... aren't all the "addictive" threads close enough? Seriously?
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.-1 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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?
0 -
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
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Calling it devil, toxic and poison is.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
LOL! No, it is not the same thing.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I almost never see people who have restricted or eliminated sugar claim that sugar is the devil.
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.
As for sugar is the devil... aren't all the "addictive" threads close enough? Seriously?
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.
Obviously "devil" is a figure of speech. I doubt people here actually think that sugar is a religious figure draped in red with horns and what not. Sheez.
So we agree that there is a group calling it devil, toxic and poison. We can even go look for toxic sugar cleanses next if you like.
Oh, and name calling IS already a violation here.0 -
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.
0 -
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?
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.
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.
0 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions