what is a food you have cut from your diet with some success?
Options
Replies
-
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?
I don't think this is addressing mamapeach's point. To use myself as an example, I pretty much never eat brownies, because you can't eat everything, and brownies to me aren't usually worth the calories. I'd rather eat either a more nutrient-dense alternative, something with fewer calories, or something I like even more. So while I like brownies fine, I never see a reason to CHOOSE them over the options. That's to me what the difference is: your criteria for choosing may make it so some foods never get chosen, but unless you've declared "I will never eat X, no matter what, because bad" (or health problem or religion/ethics), that's not cutting it out in my opinion.
So I don't think anyone is saying that you need to eat brownies and not binge. The question is why bother cutting it out and making it about NOT eating it, rather than just using criteria that means you eat it when it seems like a good choice, which may be never.
Like mamapeach I pretty much never eat rice, but I haven't cut it out. The calories aren't worth it for me (since I think it's an okay, not that interesting food). I will likely eat it at lunch today because I plan to work out hard just before a lunch I have to go to from a Chinese place and am trying out eating easy to digest carbs post workout. The rice will be the most obvious thing available, so the circumstances have changed and that affects whether I eat it. If I were to say "but I've cut it out," what good would that do me? It would have been a rather pointless thing to do, but yet I've gotten all the benefits of forgoing those calories anyway.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I think so too. I'm trying to understand the perceived benefit of saying "I've cut out X," especially for those who claim to occasionally still eat the food in question. There seems to be this misunderstanding that if you don't officially cut out some food that you must eat it all the time, and that's clearly nonsense.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I think so too. I'm trying to understand the perceived benefit of saying "I've cut out X," especially for those who claim to occasionally still eat the food in question. There seems to be this misunderstanding that if you don't officially cut out some food that you must eat it all the time, and that's clearly nonsense.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it's just the way they normally talk. Does there have to be a benefit to word choice?0 -
I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I think so too. I'm trying to understand the perceived benefit of saying "I've cut out X," especially for those who claim to occasionally still eat the food in question. There seems to be this misunderstanding that if you don't officially cut out some food that you must eat it all the time, and that's clearly nonsense.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it's just the way they normally talk. Does there have to be a benefit to word choice?
Given how many debates there are on this forum about cutting out foods vs. moderation and how weird it is that much of the time what people are talking about isn't that different, I think exploring why you choose one description vs. another is interesting.
And, yes, I think word choice matters. I think it often frames how you think about something, which is why I resist the "bad foods" terminology. Here I'm not really bothered by the word choice (although it just feels inaccurate to me in many cases), so I'm simply curious about it.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.
Okay, in this case, I'm just going to... I don't know, I can't see taking what just one poster says and inferring that everyone on the moderation "side" feels that way.
Because that's simply faulty logic.
0 -
I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?0 -
Diet Coke!!! NutraSweet & aspertame!!! Glad to be rid of that poison. When I want a carbonated beverage, I drink La Croix flavored water--no calories, no sugar of any kind.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?
Why get so hung up on the word "cut". Seriously, this seems such a common thing I just really don't understand.
Do you have have to say it? Certainly not. But there nothing at all wrong with saying it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
I think so too. I'm trying to understand the perceived benefit of saying "I've cut out X," especially for those who claim to occasionally still eat the food in question. There seems to be this misunderstanding that if you don't officially cut out some food that you must eat it all the time, and that's clearly nonsense.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it's just the way they normally talk. Does there have to be a benefit to word choice?
Given how many debates there are on this forum about cutting out foods vs. moderation and how weird it is that much of the time what people are talking about isn't that different, I think exploring why you choose one description vs. another is interesting.
And, yes, I think word choice matters. I think it often frames how you think about something, which is why I resist the "bad foods" terminology. Here I'm not really bothered by the word choice (although it just feels inaccurate to me in many cases), so I'm simply curious about it.
The thing about word choice is everyone projects their own feelings about the word onto what they read. I say "I've cut out soda". You respond with "You don't have to cut soda".
Clearly you have projected your feeling about my word choice, since I never even suggested that I felt I had to cut it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?
Why get so hung up on the word "cut". Seriously, this seems such a common thing I just really don't understand.
Do you have have to say it? Certainly not. But there nothing at all wrong with saying it.
For me, it's not that it's wrong per se. I've attempted to understand this before. I don't understand the psychology behind it... especially for people who aren't really cutting it and who are just very, very, very rarely and only under extremely special circumstances eating the foods. Or people who are doing what lemurcat suggested, just not partaking of foods they don't particularly care to partake of because they don't want them that much. I'm not one much for cake. You'll never see me go out of my way to eat it. I'm not cutting out cake, I just am meh about it. Have I eaten it before? Sure. I had a sweet tooth. Any port in a storm. I'm pickier about my foods now.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?
Why get so hung up on the word "cut". Seriously, this seems such a common thing I just really don't understand.
Do you have have to say it? Certainly not. But there nothing at all wrong with saying it.
For me, it's not that it's wrong per se. I've attempted to understand this before. I don't understand the psychology behind it... especially for people who aren't really cutting it and who are just very, very, very rarely and only under extremely special circumstances eating the foods. Or people who are doing what lemurcat suggested, just not partaking of foods they don't particularly care to partake of because they don't want them that much. I'm not one much for cake. You'll never see me go out of my way to eat it. I'm not cutting out cake, I just am meh about it. Have I eaten it before? Sure. I had a sweet tooth. Any port in a storm. I'm pickier about my foods now.
I guess I just don't understand why we need to understand the psychology behind every word. Or how you could ever determine that from a forum post.
I don't drink coffee. Everyone I know knows this about me. But sometimes when I get a bad headache the caffeine helps and I'll have a strong cup of coffee. I don't feel that saying "I don't drink coffee" is untrue because on the rare occasion I might drink it, or that I need to start saying "I don't drink coffee, unless I have a bad headache."
I also stopped drinking soda years ago. That's what I say "I stopped drinking soda". Because "I cut soda" is not a familiar way for me to talk. If I'm somewhere and all there is to drink is soda, I'll drink soda if I'm thirsty.
People are different and come from different cultures and regions that have different ways of phrasing things.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?
Personally I can see what you mean there - cut does imply some kind of forced elimination rather than a preference-based one. Others might not interpret it the same way though. To them it might have more positive connotations, or could just be lazy word use!0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?
Why get so hung up on the word "cut". Seriously, this seems such a common thing I just really don't understand.
Do you have have to say it? Certainly not. But there nothing at all wrong with saying it.
For me, it's not that it's wrong per se. I've attempted to understand this before. I don't understand the psychology behind it... especially for people who aren't really cutting it and who are just very, very, very rarely and only under extremely special circumstances eating the foods. Or people who are doing what lemurcat suggested, just not partaking of foods they don't particularly care to partake of because they don't want them that much. I'm not one much for cake. You'll never see me go out of my way to eat it. I'm not cutting out cake, I just am meh about it. Have I eaten it before? Sure. I had a sweet tooth. Any port in a storm. I'm pickier about my foods now.
I guess I just don't understand why we need to understand the psychology behind every word. Or how you could ever determine that from a forum post.
I don't drink coffee. Everyone I know knows this about me. But sometimes when I get a bad headache the caffeine helps and I'll have a strong cup of coffee. I don't feel that saying "I don't drink coffee" is untrue because on the rare occasion I might drink it, or that I need to start saying "I don't drink coffee, unless I have a bad headache."
I also stopped drinking soda years ago. That's what I say "I stopped drinking soda". Because "I cut soda" is not a familiar way for me to talk. If I'm somewhere and all there is to drink is soda, I'll drink soda if I'm thirsty.
People are different and come from different cultures and regions that have different ways of phrasing things.
I don't NEED to understand the psychology behind it, I'm just curious about it because I find it interesting beyond just shrugging my shoulders and saying "people are different, yo".
I'd like to have a friendly discussion about it with someone, and tried to, but it ended up with them getting all defensive.
So maybe I'll start laying why I use the language I use out there on the line. I like words, and find qualifiers like "usually don't", and "for the most part", or "rarely", quite sufficient to explain my consumption of certain things that I hardly ever eat. I'm talking stuff I might only eat say, once a year like the cheese fries on vacation. Have I given up fries? No. I eat them, once a year. On vacation. They are the only fries I've tasted that are good enough to be worth the calories.
That has been a pretty consistent pattern with me for a while, even before coming to MFP, me and those fries.
I can't say to myself that I "gave up fries", because I know in my head that I still eat them. I don't see how the "I gave up xyz" (but yeah, I'll still eat it under certain conditions) crowd lives with the cognitive dissonance. Or why they'd want to, and what they'd get out of it. Isn't it easier to just be honest about it all? I'm not trying to be provocative here, I'm really trying to understand, because as I said, there really is just a simply way of stating... "I just about never eat donuts." It implies everything that needs to be said quite nicely.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?
Why get so hung up on the word "cut". Seriously, this seems such a common thing I just really don't understand.
Do you have have to say it? Certainly not. But there nothing at all wrong with saying it.
For me, it's not that it's wrong per se. I've attempted to understand this before. I don't understand the psychology behind it... especially for people who aren't really cutting it and who are just very, very, very rarely and only under extremely special circumstances eating the foods. Or people who are doing what lemurcat suggested, just not partaking of foods they don't particularly care to partake of because they don't want them that much. I'm not one much for cake. You'll never see me go out of my way to eat it. I'm not cutting out cake, I just am meh about it. Have I eaten it before? Sure. I had a sweet tooth. Any port in a storm. I'm pickier about my foods now.
I guess I just don't understand why we need to understand the psychology behind every word. Or how you could ever determine that from a forum post.
I don't drink coffee. Everyone I know knows this about me. But sometimes when I get a bad headache the caffeine helps and I'll have a strong cup of coffee. I don't feel that saying "I don't drink coffee" is untrue because on the rare occasion I might drink it, or that I need to start saying "I don't drink coffee, unless I have a bad headache."
I also stopped drinking soda years ago. That's what I say "I stopped drinking soda". Because "I cut soda" is not a familiar way for me to talk. If I'm somewhere and all there is to drink is soda, I'll drink soda if I'm thirsty.
People are different and come from different cultures and regions that have different ways of phrasing things.
I don't NEED to understand the psychology behind it, I'm just curious about it because I find it interesting beyond just shrugging my shoulders and saying "people are different, yo".
I'd like to have a friendly discussion about it with someone, and tried to, but it ended up with them getting all defensive.
So maybe I'll start laying why I use the language I use out there on the line. I like words, and find qualifiers like "usually don't", and "for the most part", or "rarely", quite sufficient to explain my consumption of certain things that I hardly ever eat. I'm talking stuff I might only eat say, once a year like the cheese fries on vacation. Have I given up fries? No. I eat them, once a year. On vacation. They are the only fries I've tasted that are good enough to be worth the calories.
That has been a pretty consistent pattern with me for a while, even before coming to MFP, me and those fries.
I can't say to myself that I "gave up fries", because I know in my head that I still eat them. I don't see how the "I gave up xyz" (but yeah, I'll still eat it under certain conditions) crowd lives with the cognitive dissonance. Or why they'd want to, and what they'd get out of it. Isn't it easier to just be honest about it all? I'm not trying to be provocative here, I'm really trying to understand, because as I said, there really is just a simply way of stating... "I just about never eat donuts." It implies everything that needs to be said quite nicely.
"lives with the cognitive dissonance"
Well, since I say "I stopped drinking soda", even though I do occasionally drink it, let me see if I can explain why. Honestly, I've never given it much thought, but I guess the reason is that I hope to never drink soda again. But, if I'm thirsty and soda is what's available I'm not going to stay thirsty out of principle.
Same with coffee. Though that is not something I cut or stopped. I never drank it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?
Why get so hung up on the word "cut". Seriously, this seems such a common thing I just really don't understand.
Do you have have to say it? Certainly not. But there nothing at all wrong with saying it.
For me, it's not that it's wrong per se. I've attempted to understand this before. I don't understand the psychology behind it... especially for people who aren't really cutting it and who are just very, very, very rarely and only under extremely special circumstances eating the foods. Or people who are doing what lemurcat suggested, just not partaking of foods they don't particularly care to partake of because they don't want them that much. I'm not one much for cake. You'll never see me go out of my way to eat it. I'm not cutting out cake, I just am meh about it. Have I eaten it before? Sure. I had a sweet tooth. Any port in a storm. I'm pickier about my foods now.
I guess I just don't understand why we need to understand the psychology behind every word. Or how you could ever determine that from a forum post.
I don't drink coffee. Everyone I know knows this about me. But sometimes when I get a bad headache the caffeine helps and I'll have a strong cup of coffee. I don't feel that saying "I don't drink coffee" is untrue because on the rare occasion I might drink it, or that I need to start saying "I don't drink coffee, unless I have a bad headache."
I also stopped drinking soda years ago. That's what I say "I stopped drinking soda". Because "I cut soda" is not a familiar way for me to talk. If I'm somewhere and all there is to drink is soda, I'll drink soda if I'm thirsty.
People are different and come from different cultures and regions that have different ways of phrasing things.
I don't NEED to understand the psychology behind it, I'm just curious about it because I find it interesting beyond just shrugging my shoulders and saying "people are different, yo".
I'd like to have a friendly discussion about it with someone, and tried to, but it ended up with them getting all defensive.
So maybe I'll start laying why I use the language I use out there on the line. I like words, and find qualifiers like "usually don't", and "for the most part", or "rarely", quite sufficient to explain my consumption of certain things that I hardly ever eat. I'm talking stuff I might only eat say, once a year like the cheese fries on vacation. Have I given up fries? No. I eat them, once a year. On vacation. They are the only fries I've tasted that are good enough to be worth the calories.
That has been a pretty consistent pattern with me for a while, even before coming to MFP, me and those fries.
I can't say to myself that I "gave up fries", because I know in my head that I still eat them. I don't see how the "I gave up xyz" (but yeah, I'll still eat it under certain conditions) crowd lives with the cognitive dissonance. Or why they'd want to, and what they'd get out of it. Isn't it easier to just be honest about it all? I'm not trying to be provocative here, I'm really trying to understand, because as I said, there really is just a simply way of stating... "I just about never eat donuts." It implies everything that needs to be said quite nicely.
"lives with the cognitive dissonance"
Well, since I say "I stopped drinking soda", even though I do occasionally drink it, let me see if I can explain why. Honestly, I've never given it much thought, but I guess the reason is that I hope to never drink soda again. But, if I'm thirsty and soda is what's available I'm not going to stay thirsty out of principle.
Same with coffee. Though that is not something I cut or stopped. I never drank it.
The hoping to never have it again, I can totally understand. I despise cream soda, but if it were the only thing available to drink, I'd probably drink it.
I'm going to assume that for every person, and probably for ever food that's a once in a blue moon thing... for the people who say they gave it up... there's probably different reasoning behind it.
It will remain forever shrouded in mystery to me
0 -
I gave up Soda all together with my diet and added a bonus don't eat after 8:30 for lent. It's been a good feeling as I don't feel sluggish and I'm more alert. The eating after 8:30 was because I was a huge fan of snaking. Definitely can see the weight loss.
0 -
White sugar. I haven't cut it out completely but I no longer add it to anything. I substitute honey or stevia.
Mountain Dew...I tried one a while back and one sip was too sweet. I used to drink one every morning instead of a coffee.0 -
I cut right back on bread, cereal, milk, pasta, rice.
Now I get to eat as much as I like (to satisfaction) of the food I enjoy the most, not have to count calories and know that I am likely going to be in a calorie deficit, or there abouts.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?
Why get so hung up on the word "cut". Seriously, this seems such a common thing I just really don't understand.
Do you have have to say it? Certainly not. But there nothing at all wrong with saying it.
It seems to be inaccurate in many or most cases. Thus, I'm curious why people choose to use it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions