what is a food you have cut from your diet with some success?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Dude, we're the same person. I had apple juice once last year, although I did work my way through the bottle. I was craving it when I was sick.lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think anybody who has deliberately lost weight HAS grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures. Those that choose to eliminate certain foods have just decided that those foods don't fit their goals nearly as well as other available choices....and I suspect many of them like and enjoy the foods they do eat.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »emilyr0011 wrote: »What have I let go of? Late night snacking and eating past 6pm. Also fast food, chocolate (which is my weakness), sugars and anything fried. Bread, rice, pizza, and pasta are things I refuse to eat right now. So far its been 2 weeks of clean eating, and I'm already down 11 pounds. I am thinking I was having at least 3,000 calories a day before this.
I do have a cheat meal (controlling my portion) once a week.
what a sad, sad, world that must be...
Why is that a sad world? Apparently she's pleased with the choice of eating more nutrient dense foods instead of foods that don't provide nutrients, which is actually a good thing to some people. So she's happy with her choices and the progress she's made - good.
Why do you jump around these forums just smartazzing all over the place? I mean, really? Oh wait, it's a public forum so everyone has the right to. This is the thing - you probably really do have some really good information to share, but douchebaggery turns people's ears away and tunes you out.
Typically people that restrict certain foods, that they actually like, fail due to it not being sustainable over long periods of time. Especially if it's a long list.
To lose weight everyone needs to cut something. Whether you cut out a little of everything or all of a few things, you still are likely to regain the weight.
That something being caloric intake regardless of source. I would wager one would be less likely to regain the weight if they grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures instead of just eliminating foods they like and enjoy.
This is one reason why I don't think "I have eliminated X" is really necessary. If you set goals, you may end up never (or almost never) eating X, because you always prefer to eat Y, given the context.
To take one example brought up here, I NEVER drink juice. I just can't see any reason to do so, when I could eat the fruit instead, given my own preferences and priorities. But if one day I woke up dying for a glass of orange juice and eating an orange or drinking something else just wouldn't cut it, I'd probably go find some orange juice somewhere, because why not? And then I probably wouldn't have it again for another year.
Thus, I honestly don't understand the purpose of cutting out juice.
Edit: not picking on juice in particular or cutting things out, but just interested in what seems to be different preferred ways of thinking about this.
And why cut out things you like to eat? That said, there are a whole bunch of things I don't eat or eat very rarely. Those are things that don't agree with my stomach or my goals. But I never really ate them before dieting either because I don't really like then and/or their effects.
I like white chocolate Reese's, and I like dark chocolate. To eat 1 Reese's, I'd have to give up half my fruit and vegetables for the day to make it fit. To eat a square of dark chocolate, I'd have to give up a grape tomato. All things being equal, I'd rather have a salad with 5 tomatoes instead of 6 and have some chocolate than leave all the veggies out of my omelet to have a peanut butter cup. Or, just have all 6 tomatoes and eat the dark chocolate, because going 2 over isn't earth shattering, while going 11 over in that compact a package will probably just send me straight to the bathroom.
To me this isn't giving up foods, but making a value judgment between them. That I almost always prefer having some cheese to making room in my diet for full fat cottage cheese and greek yogurt (in lieu of 2%) doesn't mean I've eliminated full fat dairy (other than cheese). It just means given the options those foods rarely make the cut. So I don't want them, under the circumstances.
But that's getting back to what people actually mean by the words "moderation" or "give up" again. To me, moderation means consciously rationing out how often you can have something, and planning to do it on some sort of regular basis (once a week, once a month, only on special occasions, etc). There may be some day I decide to say hell with it and eat a white chocolate Reese's, but it'll be a much rarer than special occasions thing. Not to mention it'd probably taste disgustingly sweet to me after all these years to begin with.0 -
Yeah, people are just using the words differently. I never eat white chocolate Reeses, because I can only have so much chocolate/so many sweets and there are far too many that taste much better (often for fewer calories). But I'd wouldn't say I've cut them out. I couldn't possibly even list out all the millions of things I don't eat, so it would be weird to say I've cut them out.
I eat in moderation (I think) in that if I really want a food I figure out way to eat it (amount or how often) that works with my overall nutritional goals.0 -
I have not 100% cut anything from my diet. I have cut BACK a lot on things like giant hunks of cheese or Dr Pepper ....I've cut back on wine...but not because I deemed it bad for me but simply because I'd rather spend my calories elsewhere.0
-
Moderation is great for most things. However, it just doesn't work for me when it comes to oreos.
0 -
Cheap chocolate candy. Now I hold out for the really good stuff and enjoy it without guilt.0
-
Just excessive food, otherwise I eat anything I want just less of it!!
This the only time I have lost the weight and have kept it off for 6 months now, before kept my calories low, 1200 cals or less, and not eaten certain foods, then only to binge and gain it all the weight back.0 -
I see what you're saying. In my case it's not that I don't like the things I have cut/restricted/severely moderated. I do. If they were sitting in my kitchen right now, I might have a hard time resisting them. But since they aren't, I don't miss them (I hope that makes sense). Out of sight, out of mind seems to work for me. Luckily, I like many things...many of which don't cause issues for me.lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd call this moderation because it sounds like you aren't wanting the things you aren't eating. As you said, they don't cross your mind. Lots of things are in this category for me (more specific things than added sugar, but let's say cake or candy other than high quality chocolate or store-bought bread). I don't consider myself to have cut them out, because I'm just not that interested in eating them, given the costs and the alternatives (the other things I'd rather eat) and given how I generally eat.
Hmm, I guess that's the point in a nutshell--foods I don't eat are foods I don't want to eat. Cutting foods out implies that you are not eating them despite wanting to eat them, and that's not the case for the foods I don't eat (other than, from time to time, my regret that I can't drink wine).
For the record, I'm not at all trying to argue, but just to work through the different understandings of the words we are using. ;-)
For example, caramels vs. peanut butter. I like both, both are high in calories. I eat peanut butter almost every day...sometimes 300-400 calories worth. Yet I almost never eat caramels. Why the different treatment?
Natural peanut butter is just peanuts and salt so sets off no cravings in me. Despite my adoration of peanut butter, I never get the urge to eat all of it. So for me, it is an infinitely better choice than caramels, which are basically just sugar...which I also like but which WILL set off cravings and might result in a binge. Two choices...two things I like just about equally...I pick the one with no downside.
Calories aren't the problem. The peanut butter calories easily fit. I could simply replace that with caramels once in a while if I wanted to eat them... but the sugar in caramels causes cravings I find very difficult to manage. If I buy it, the cravings will come back. Just not worth it. I am ashamed to admit I have eaten entire containers of fleur de sel caramels in one sitting many times. I have never eaten an entire jar of peanut butter. Easy decision.
In terms of what you said about things that are actively harmful to you in some way, I suppose I put sugar in that category because I have major control issues with it. It is a trigger for binge eating, and when I eliminate the sugar the binges completely disappear. Maybe I have eliminated it long enough that I could now reintroduce it with better control. But maybe I haven't. I see no reason to test it when I am doing so well. I have very little to gain (other than a lot of weight). I am satisfied having the occasional dessert on a holiday or special occasion with a friend. That I have never had trouble managing. Keeping it at home is just asking for trouble.
That being said...I never feel deprived. I don't sit here thinking how terrible it is that I am not eating caramels or other sugary stuff. I do like it...but I don't actively crave it if I haven't been eating it recently. At the beginning I did crave it. It took a while to get the sugar out of my system, so for a few weeks it was painful...but now it is habit and easy. The only time I ever miss it is when I walk past the crepe place a few blocks from my apartment or a bakery and smell that just made sweet smell. But that last 30 seconds and then I forget all about it with no harm done.
0 -
I'm a cereal lover. cereal is tough because of the serving sizes. I used to eat lucky charms, fruit loops, reeses puffs, pretty much any sugary cereal. and I had a BIG bowl of cereal, like 2-3 sometimes even 4 servings every morning with 2% milk.
now, I limit my cereal to only cheerios and special k with fat free milk. I use a scale to measure the appropriate serving size.
0 -
Potato chips, soft drinks *unless they are mixed with alcohol*
I used to eat a lot of potato chips in high school, a big bag with KETCHUP (i know, gross) and a chocolate block would be my lunch, though i was never fat.
I haven't had chips in like three years, although i feel like i haven't given up anything, my taste buds changed, now i'd rather have like popcorn.
Obviously, that doesn't work for everything, it hasn't been a single day that didn't have any kind of chocolate treat.
0 -
All added sugar to coffee and tea, and absolutely no sugary drinks such as fizzy, juices, flavoured milks, sports waters etc. The amount of sugar and kilohoules in these drinks is absolutely nuts. Only water, or sugarless tea and coffee now (have cut back on coffee and tea quite a bit). Never ever drank energy drinks, so no biggy there.0
-
what is one food that you have deemed 'bad' for *you* and have successfully cut from your diet?
Scallops. Because, ew.
I've been able to cut down quite a lot on coffee ---not by choice--- with some success. I found out consuming a certain amount of it gave me heart murmurs. That was hard.....*cry*0 -
I'm in the not cut anything out camp
because that's what I always used to do and it didn't work for me0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think anybody who has deliberately lost weight HAS grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures. Those that choose to eliminate certain foods have just decided that those foods don't fit their goals nearly as well as other available choices....and I suspect many of them like and enjoy the foods they do eat.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »emilyr0011 wrote: »What have I let go of? Late night snacking and eating past 6pm. Also fast food, chocolate (which is my weakness), sugars and anything fried. Bread, rice, pizza, and pasta are things I refuse to eat right now. So far its been 2 weeks of clean eating, and I'm already down 11 pounds. I am thinking I was having at least 3,000 calories a day before this.
I do have a cheat meal (controlling my portion) once a week.
what a sad, sad, world that must be...
Why is that a sad world? Apparently she's pleased with the choice of eating more nutrient dense foods instead of foods that don't provide nutrients, which is actually a good thing to some people. So she's happy with her choices and the progress she's made - good.
Why do you jump around these forums just smartazzing all over the place? I mean, really? Oh wait, it's a public forum so everyone has the right to. This is the thing - you probably really do have some really good information to share, but douchebaggery turns people's ears away and tunes you out.
Typically people that restrict certain foods, that they actually like, fail due to it not being sustainable over long periods of time. Especially if it's a long list.
To lose weight everyone needs to cut something. Whether you cut out a little of everything or all of a few things, you still are likely to regain the weight.
That something being caloric intake regardless of source. I would wager one would be less likely to regain the weight if they grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures instead of just eliminating foods they like and enjoy.
I think this is pretty much coming down to a splitting hairs discussion. I'm going to use myself for an example.
For the most part, I don't eat rice. For the calories, the taste just isn't worth it to me. Have I eliminated it to lose weight? No. If I decide on a whim one day that I really want rice, I'll definitely manage to fit it in.
I don't, for example, regularly eat potato chips. Yet one day, about a month ago, I REALLY wanted some. I had a small snack bag, about 150 calories worth. Haven't had them since. Hadn't had them in ages before that point. Could I have said before that point that I'd given up potato chips? Possibly.
Pizza? Well, I have celiac disease and gluten free pizza doesn't really do it for me, but there have been times in the past where I haven't cared and have wanted it enough to eat it. I expect that there will be times in the future that this will happen again. I'll fit it in. It's not a regular thing, but it's not because of calorie restriction, it's a food preference thing.
I just don't take any food off the table. I'm even to the point that I believe that I'd be fine with my one trigger food, brownies, being safe in my kitchen, and consumable, one small square at a time.
I think you'd find that a lot of people who have eliminated foods might be like me and indulge in them on occasion anyway. What's the difference between saying "Oh, I NEVER eat xyz except...." and "I don't eliminate any foods" except the attitude behind it?
0 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think anybody who has deliberately lost weight HAS grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures. Those that choose to eliminate certain foods have just decided that those foods don't fit their goals nearly as well as other available choices....and I suspect many of them like and enjoy the foods they do eat.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »emilyr0011 wrote: »What have I let go of? Late night snacking and eating past 6pm. Also fast food, chocolate (which is my weakness), sugars and anything fried. Bread, rice, pizza, and pasta are things I refuse to eat right now. So far its been 2 weeks of clean eating, and I'm already down 11 pounds. I am thinking I was having at least 3,000 calories a day before this.
I do have a cheat meal (controlling my portion) once a week.
what a sad, sad, world that must be...
Why is that a sad world? Apparently she's pleased with the choice of eating more nutrient dense foods instead of foods that don't provide nutrients, which is actually a good thing to some people. So she's happy with her choices and the progress she's made - good.
Why do you jump around these forums just smartazzing all over the place? I mean, really? Oh wait, it's a public forum so everyone has the right to. This is the thing - you probably really do have some really good information to share, but douchebaggery turns people's ears away and tunes you out.
Typically people that restrict certain foods, that they actually like, fail due to it not being sustainable over long periods of time. Especially if it's a long list.
To lose weight everyone needs to cut something. Whether you cut out a little of everything or all of a few things, you still are likely to regain the weight.
That something being caloric intake regardless of source. I would wager one would be less likely to regain the weight if they grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures instead of just eliminating foods they like and enjoy.
I think this is pretty much coming down to a splitting hairs discussion. I'm going to use myself for an example.
For the most part, I don't eat rice. For the calories, the taste just isn't worth it to me. Have I eliminated it to lose weight? No. If I decide on a whim one day that I really want rice, I'll definitely manage to fit it in.
I don't, for example, regularly eat potato chips. Yet one day, about a month ago, I REALLY wanted some. I had a small snack bag, about 150 calories worth. Haven't had them since. Hadn't had them in ages before that point. Could I have said before that point that I'd given up potato chips? Possibly.
Pizza? Well, I have celiac disease and gluten free pizza doesn't really do it for me, but there have been times in the past where I haven't cared and have wanted it enough to eat it. I expect that there will be times in the future that this will happen again. I'll fit it in. It's not a regular thing, but it's not because of calorie restriction, it's a food preference thing.
I just don't take any food off the table. I'm even to the point that I believe that I'd be fine with my one trigger food, brownies, being safe in my kitchen, and consumable, one small square at a time.
I think you'd find that a lot of people who have eliminated foods might be like me and indulge in them on occasion anyway. What's the difference between saying "Oh, I NEVER eat xyz except...." and "I don't eliminate any foods" except the attitude behind it?
I'd say a primary difference is represented by the posts earlier in this thread, insisting that if you don't eat those brownies on a regular basis, you're guaranteeing you'll have an uncontrollable binge, because that's what happens to "the majority of people." It really doesn't matter if any given individual says they don't eat xyz or if they say they don't eliminate anything, until they suggest that whoever says the opposite is somehow doing it wrong or going to sabotage themselves.
There also seem to be some arbitrary rules that go along with that accusation. Someone who gives a thing up for a religion or a medical reason is magically immune from the need to binge on a food they choose not to eat, while someone who gives it up only to replace it with a more nutrition dense alternative is setting themselves up for failure. Unless there is some magic power that is granted with religious conversion or a medical diagnosis, that logic all on its own seems flawed. Using that argument from a few pages back, you will binge if you don't eat brownies, but apparently you're crave-proof on the pizza?0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think anybody who has deliberately lost weight HAS grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures. Those that choose to eliminate certain foods have just decided that those foods don't fit their goals nearly as well as other available choices....and I suspect many of them like and enjoy the foods they do eat.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »emilyr0011 wrote: »What have I let go of? Late night snacking and eating past 6pm. Also fast food, chocolate (which is my weakness), sugars and anything fried. Bread, rice, pizza, and pasta are things I refuse to eat right now. So far its been 2 weeks of clean eating, and I'm already down 11 pounds. I am thinking I was having at least 3,000 calories a day before this.
I do have a cheat meal (controlling my portion) once a week.
what a sad, sad, world that must be...
Why is that a sad world? Apparently she's pleased with the choice of eating more nutrient dense foods instead of foods that don't provide nutrients, which is actually a good thing to some people. So she's happy with her choices and the progress she's made - good.
Why do you jump around these forums just smartazzing all over the place? I mean, really? Oh wait, it's a public forum so everyone has the right to. This is the thing - you probably really do have some really good information to share, but douchebaggery turns people's ears away and tunes you out.
Typically people that restrict certain foods, that they actually like, fail due to it not being sustainable over long periods of time. Especially if it's a long list.
To lose weight everyone needs to cut something. Whether you cut out a little of everything or all of a few things, you still are likely to regain the weight.
That something being caloric intake regardless of source. I would wager one would be less likely to regain the weight if they grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures instead of just eliminating foods they like and enjoy.
I think this is pretty much coming down to a splitting hairs discussion. I'm going to use myself for an example.
For the most part, I don't eat rice. For the calories, the taste just isn't worth it to me. Have I eliminated it to lose weight? No. If I decide on a whim one day that I really want rice, I'll definitely manage to fit it in.
I don't, for example, regularly eat potato chips. Yet one day, about a month ago, I REALLY wanted some. I had a small snack bag, about 150 calories worth. Haven't had them since. Hadn't had them in ages before that point. Could I have said before that point that I'd given up potato chips? Possibly.
Pizza? Well, I have celiac disease and gluten free pizza doesn't really do it for me, but there have been times in the past where I haven't cared and have wanted it enough to eat it. I expect that there will be times in the future that this will happen again. I'll fit it in. It's not a regular thing, but it's not because of calorie restriction, it's a food preference thing.
I just don't take any food off the table. I'm even to the point that I believe that I'd be fine with my one trigger food, brownies, being safe in my kitchen, and consumable, one small square at a time.
I think you'd find that a lot of people who have eliminated foods might be like me and indulge in them on occasion anyway. What's the difference between saying "Oh, I NEVER eat xyz except...." and "I don't eliminate any foods" except the attitude behind it?
I'd say a primary difference is represented by the posts earlier in this thread, insisting that if you don't eat those brownies on a regular basis, you're guaranteeing you'll have an uncontrollable binge, because that's what happens to "the majority of people." It really doesn't matter if any given individual says they don't eat xyz or if they say they don't eliminate anything, until they suggest that whoever says the opposite is somehow doing it wrong or going to sabotage themselves.
There also seem to be some arbitrary rules that go along with that accusation. Someone who gives a thing up for a religion or a medical reason is magically immune from the need to binge on a food they choose not to eat, while someone who gives it up only to replace it with a more nutrition dense alternative is setting themselves up for failure. Unless there is some magic power that is granted with religious conversion or a medical diagnosis, that logic all on its own seems flawed. Using that argument from a few pages back, you will binge if you don't eat brownies, but apparently you're crave-proof on the pizza?
1. I think equating concrete religious or medical restriction with something arbitrary like dietary choice is a bit of a stretch, and just won't wash. I CAN'T eat gluten. It's not a choice I'm making. People making arbitrary dietary restrictions are free to lift them without consequence. They believe the whole craving thing, but honestly, you can get past the whole idea that food has power over you. I've been there. Was there for a very, very long stretch of time. I'm past it.
2. I'm not following what you're saying about the brownies vs. the pizza, since I said that I'm ready to eat the brownies without them triggering me. I'm sure I can eat one, and leave the pan to eat another one tomorrow. If I didn't have a migraine now, I'd plan on going to the store for ingredients, because now I want them. For the record, I still ate brownies. I just ate them in special circumstances. There's a local diner that has a gluten free brownie on the dessert menu. Simples. Single serving, no going back and eating the whole pan.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think anybody who has deliberately lost weight HAS grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures. Those that choose to eliminate certain foods have just decided that those foods don't fit their goals nearly as well as other available choices....and I suspect many of them like and enjoy the foods they do eat.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »emilyr0011 wrote: »What have I let go of? Late night snacking and eating past 6pm. Also fast food, chocolate (which is my weakness), sugars and anything fried. Bread, rice, pizza, and pasta are things I refuse to eat right now. So far its been 2 weeks of clean eating, and I'm already down 11 pounds. I am thinking I was having at least 3,000 calories a day before this.
I do have a cheat meal (controlling my portion) once a week.
what a sad, sad, world that must be...
Why is that a sad world? Apparently she's pleased with the choice of eating more nutrient dense foods instead of foods that don't provide nutrients, which is actually a good thing to some people. So she's happy with her choices and the progress she's made - good.
Why do you jump around these forums just smartazzing all over the place? I mean, really? Oh wait, it's a public forum so everyone has the right to. This is the thing - you probably really do have some really good information to share, but douchebaggery turns people's ears away and tunes you out.
Typically people that restrict certain foods, that they actually like, fail due to it not being sustainable over long periods of time. Especially if it's a long list.
To lose weight everyone needs to cut something. Whether you cut out a little of everything or all of a few things, you still are likely to regain the weight.
That something being caloric intake regardless of source. I would wager one would be less likely to regain the weight if they grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures instead of just eliminating foods they like and enjoy.
I think this is pretty much coming down to a splitting hairs discussion. I'm going to use myself for an example.
For the most part, I don't eat rice. For the calories, the taste just isn't worth it to me. Have I eliminated it to lose weight? No. If I decide on a whim one day that I really want rice, I'll definitely manage to fit it in.
I don't, for example, regularly eat potato chips. Yet one day, about a month ago, I REALLY wanted some. I had a small snack bag, about 150 calories worth. Haven't had them since. Hadn't had them in ages before that point. Could I have said before that point that I'd given up potato chips? Possibly.
Pizza? Well, I have celiac disease and gluten free pizza doesn't really do it for me, but there have been times in the past where I haven't cared and have wanted it enough to eat it. I expect that there will be times in the future that this will happen again. I'll fit it in. It's not a regular thing, but it's not because of calorie restriction, it's a food preference thing.
I just don't take any food off the table. I'm even to the point that I believe that I'd be fine with my one trigger food, brownies, being safe in my kitchen, and consumable, one small square at a time.
I think you'd find that a lot of people who have eliminated foods might be like me and indulge in them on occasion anyway. What's the difference between saying "Oh, I NEVER eat xyz except...." and "I don't eliminate any foods" except the attitude behind it?
I'd say a primary difference is represented by the posts earlier in this thread, insisting that if you don't eat those brownies on a regular basis, you're guaranteeing you'll have an uncontrollable binge, because that's what happens to "the majority of people." It really doesn't matter if any given individual says they don't eat xyz or if they say they don't eliminate anything, until they suggest that whoever says the opposite is somehow doing it wrong or going to sabotage themselves.
There also seem to be some arbitrary rules that go along with that accusation. Someone who gives a thing up for a religion or a medical reason is magically immune from the need to binge on a food they choose not to eat, while someone who gives it up only to replace it with a more nutrition dense alternative is setting themselves up for failure. Unless there is some magic power that is granted with religious conversion or a medical diagnosis, that logic all on its own seems flawed. Using that argument from a few pages back, you will binge if you don't eat brownies, but apparently you're crave-proof on the pizza?
1. I think equating concrete religious or medical restriction with something arbitrary like dietary choice is a bit of a stretch, and just won't wash. I CAN'T eat gluten. It's not a choice I'm making. People making arbitrary dietary restrictions are free to lift them without consequence. They believe the whole craving thing, but honestly, you can get past the whole idea that food has power over you. I've been there. Was there for a very, very long stretch of time. I'm past it.
2. I'm not following what you're saying about the brownies vs. the pizza, since I said that I'm ready to eat the brownies without them triggering me. I'm sure I can eat one, and leave the pan to eat another one tomorrow. If I didn't have a migraine now, I'd plan on going to the store for ingredients, because now I want them. For the record, I still ate brownies. I just ate them in special circumstances. There's a local diner that has a gluten free brownie on the dessert menu. Simples. Single serving, no going back and eating the whole pan.
Go back to the middle pages of the thread, where someone was insisting that for the majority of people, not eating your trigger food on a regular basis is what will cause a binge (in your case, the brownies.) That same argument also says that doesn't apply to giving things up for medical or religious reasons. That's the conflict I'm trying to unravel, and using your two foods as an example. According to that person's insistence on how the world works, you should be binging on brownies every week you don't allow yourself to eat one, but you should never want pizza because it's medically bad for you.
If you point out to this person that you have managed to skip brownies without bingeing, they insist that makes you a minority outlier. And there lies the difference between those who insist on never giving things up vs those who state they choose not to eat things. The mindset that seems to go along with it that choosing not to eat something is a purely emotional choice that will always backfire.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »For example, caramels vs. peanut butter. I like both, both are high in calories. I eat peanut butter almost every day...sometimes 300-400 calories worth. Yet I almost never eat caramels. Why the different treatment?
Natural peanut butter is just peanuts and salt so sets off no cravings in me. Despite my adoration of peanut butter, I never get the urge to eat all of it. So for me, it is an infinitely better choice than caramels, which are basically just sugar...which I also like but which WILL set off cravings and might result in a binge. Two choices...two things I like just about equally...I pick the one with no downside.
See for me, let's say this is a choice between caramels and cheese. I also like both, but I eat cheese frequently and caramels almost never. NOT because I've cut out caramels (even though I generally don't eat them), but because my goals only allow so much stuff that's basically just calories and sugar, and caramels don't make the cut (high quality chocolate or ice cream might). Cheese does make the cut (I know it's not sugary, not saying that) either because I like it more or it brings something more to the table--fat or protein--or tends to be more satisfying (although to be honest I'm as likely to want more cheese as more caramels).
That is to say, I don't think the only reason for not choosing a food is because you don't like it or have cut it out. There are only so many foods we can eat in a day and choices must be made. That I choose salmon a lot and sausage rarely doesn't mean I've cut out sausage, it just means it's far less likely to meet my goals on a regular basis than the alternatives.Calories aren't the problem. The peanut butter calories easily fit. I could simply replace that with caramels once in a while if I wanted to eat them... but the sugar in caramels causes cravings I find very difficult to manage. If I buy it, the cravings will come back. Just not worth it. I am ashamed to admit I have eaten entire containers of fleur de sel caramels in one sitting many times. I have never eaten an entire jar of peanut butter. Easy decision.
If I liked peanut butter I'd pick it over caramels too, because peanut butter has macros and a nutritional profile that's more likely to fit my goals. Would you say I've cut it out? Or is what you are doing distinct because you think that there's a negative effect on you from sugar (the cravings)?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think anybody who has deliberately lost weight HAS grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures. Those that choose to eliminate certain foods have just decided that those foods don't fit their goals nearly as well as other available choices....and I suspect many of them like and enjoy the foods they do eat.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »emilyr0011 wrote: »What have I let go of? Late night snacking and eating past 6pm. Also fast food, chocolate (which is my weakness), sugars and anything fried. Bread, rice, pizza, and pasta are things I refuse to eat right now. So far its been 2 weeks of clean eating, and I'm already down 11 pounds. I am thinking I was having at least 3,000 calories a day before this.
I do have a cheat meal (controlling my portion) once a week.
what a sad, sad, world that must be...
Why is that a sad world? Apparently she's pleased with the choice of eating more nutrient dense foods instead of foods that don't provide nutrients, which is actually a good thing to some people. So she's happy with her choices and the progress she's made - good.
Why do you jump around these forums just smartazzing all over the place? I mean, really? Oh wait, it's a public forum so everyone has the right to. This is the thing - you probably really do have some really good information to share, but douchebaggery turns people's ears away and tunes you out.
Typically people that restrict certain foods, that they actually like, fail due to it not being sustainable over long periods of time. Especially if it's a long list.
To lose weight everyone needs to cut something. Whether you cut out a little of everything or all of a few things, you still are likely to regain the weight.
That something being caloric intake regardless of source. I would wager one would be less likely to regain the weight if they grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures instead of just eliminating foods they like and enjoy.
This is one reason why I don't think "I have eliminated X" is really necessary. If you set goals, you may end up never (or almost never) eating X, because you always prefer to eat Y, given the context.
To take one example brought up here, I NEVER drink juice. I just can't see any reason to do so, when I could eat the fruit instead, given my own preferences and priorities. But if one day I woke up dying for a glass of orange juice and eating an orange or drinking something else just wouldn't cut it, I'd probably go find some orange juice somewhere, because why not? And then I probably wouldn't have it again for another year.
Thus, I honestly don't understand the purpose of cutting out juice.
Edit: not picking on juice in particular or cutting things out, but just interested in what seems to be different preferred ways of thinking about this.
This seems an argument of semantics. One person says "I've cut juice from my diet" another says "I don't cut anything, but I never drink juice."
It's the same thing other then the word choice.0 -
I've stopped drinking toilet duck, I've never felt better.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K 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
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 970 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions