"Clean" or Flexible Eating - food for thought?
Options
Replies
-
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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!0 -
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.
This!0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Once again, that is YOUR belief. Most people don't see anything "bogus" in eliminating unhealthy foods. So they don't need to delude themselves, and the fact that many stick with it seems to indicate it does work for them. Again, just because YOU believe something does not mean the rest of the world does. Many people...most I suspect... believe WHAT you eat matters as much as how much you eat.
No, it's not my belief, it's about fact. If your claim is that eating any ice cream ever (for someone not lactose intolerant) is unhealthy, and someone who wants ice cream uses that as a justification--even a drop of ice cream will make me less healthy!--that's based on a lie. So either you delude yourself, which I don't think works long-term, or you have to come up with some alternative rationale.
It's simply not true that eliminating foods makes you healthier, absent an allergy or some such, or a self-control issue (which is a psychological/behaviorial thing, not health). Thus, it's not at all surprising that people who do it cling to terms like "clean" or ideas like "paleo" (running around living like our ancestors) or the like. It's about a broader concept, convincing yourself that foods that you'd prefer not to be tempted by are somehow beyond the pale, unclean, etc.
If you truly believed there'd be a negative health effect from eating a bit or even including them in moderation, that wouldn't be necessary.
0 -
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.0 -
Here's what Ive learned as noob to all this. You have to do what works for you. Some people need "Clean" eating. Some of us need "Flexible" eating. The result is the same for everyone of us. Our bodies and genes are very different from you to me. Learn yourself, and fail gracefully as this is how we learn (even if its what not to do). If it doesn't work, try something different, talk, ask questions, get support. This is a great place here to learn "you". Best of luck everyone!0
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I said "restrictions" because that is the word you used. There was no shift on my part.
Okay, that's valid. I did use "restrictions" meaning elimination, and so I guess I should have seen that term as continuing to mean elimination. Words like "restriction" are poor choices for this conversation, because unclear, which was my fault this time.
0 -
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.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
Yes, this makes sense to me (except how can someone not eat capers!). (Kidding.)
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 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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 971 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions