The truth about "I still eat the foods I love"
Options
Replies
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
totally agreemamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What does eating 0 skittles instead 20 skittles (rather than the 1000 you want) imply?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yes, but you haven't given up Skittles completely, which is what saying you've given something up implies.
I see you're here to play word games.
Why not just stick to the one about how we all moderate EVERYTHING?
and I'm laughing that we're talking about skittles!
You can't eat 0 of anything.
ok let's play mess with gricean pragmatics!
Hey, you left yourself open for that one
Zero consumption of skittles means just that. Zero consumption. You gave them up.
980 Skittles passed by me. I didn't eat a single one. Zero consumption of them. I gave up eating every Skittle that I said "No" to.
For not giving up anything, that's an awful lot of giving up.
but if you ate the other 20 then you did not give them up...
I've given up eating the first 980 no matter what I choose do with the last 20.
For not giving anything up, that's an awful lot of giving up...
And when it comes to the hyper palatable foods, sometimes eating NONE is preferable. TO ME.
It's all a matter of personal preference. And should always be respected as such. As should the exploration.
What I find really ironic is that holding such a narrow, binary view of what constitutes "giving up food" is a pretty solid indication of disordered thinking about food...
Obladi oblada...
0 -
if you say you gave up smoking but still smoked three cigarettes a week, have you given up smoking?
You tell me, in your own words. A dude goes from a pack a day to 3 cigs a week - what has he done if not given up a lot of cigarettes?
Oh, look, you already did...If you ate 1000 Skittles a day before and only 20 Skittles a day now, you've given up 980 Skittles.
So we both agree that I've given up eating a crap-load of Skittles.
:drinker:
It's a battle of semantics. Here is what is happening:
When you hear someone say: "I used to smoke a pack a day, but I quit smoking." what is the first thing that comes to your mind? What is your reaction when they follow it up with "I now only smoke half a pack".
People are falling back on the most conventional meaning for "give up" (that is, completely abandon a whole food type).
What you are saying is that you did have to make sacrifices and exercise control, that it's not as easy as eating as much as you want whenever you want. You are falling back on an unconventional meaning for "give up" (that is, completely abandon a part of a food type).
Let's just end this mind twist on a middle ground and say that "we had to give up eating more than we burn", otherwise it will devolve into mind boggling things like "everyone in the world is giving up all food".0 -
I can't deprive myself of Indian food! So I order my "usual" and then split it into 4 (yes... 4!) equal meals. I actually like this because I get a 'no guilt' take away and I get to have it 4 times and still lose weight! It also saves me a fortune 0
-
SingRunTing wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »If a small serving of ice cream isn't "worth it," then you need to evaluate why you'd consider a "food you love."
Honestly, if you need a full pint to feel like you got your ice cream on, you might be either buying crappy ice cream or eating too fast. Or maybe you just don't like ice cream as much as you think you do. Everyone needs to examine his or her own TRUE preferences and loves. Shoving food in your face without thinking about it isn't a love, it's a bad habit. When you break down tasty treats into proper portion sizes, it doesn't take that much to fit them into even a fairly low calorie limit. (I was eating premium gelato every night when I was at 1300, and I didn't have to starve myself all day to do it.) And, if you take the time to enjoy your treats, they will satisfy you.
^^This. Seriously.
And considering that, in my experience, most ice cream is ~160 calories per serving, its really not that hard to fit it in.
160 calories worth of ice cream is just sad...
May be sad for you, but not for everyone. I was just discussing the same exact things about habits and our perception. I grew up eating just one serving, and often even half a serving (kid's popsicle size). It feels plenty much to me because that's the amount I've always eaten even when I weighed more than 300 pounds, and because everyone I ever knew ate 1/2-1 serving and more seemed (and still seems) unnecessary.
I think that's the point really. Everyone should find an approach that works for them and not worry about what other people are doing. 160 calories of ice cream is sad to me, and I'd rather eat the whole pint. I just find a way to eat the whole pint, even if that means I only eat 4 pints a year - to me that's moderation (moderating frequency).
I find it fascinating that even amongst people who generally agree, there's still an undercurrent of 'you're not doing it right' (General observation - not directed at you).
That begs the question, why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? Someone talks about looking forward to their cheat meal, the post telling them they should stop putting toxins in their body or that calling it a "cheat" is setting up for failure is not helping them in any way. Someone talks about how they constantly overeat pasta and have to give them up for a while, the post telling them "I eat it all the time" or if they don't eat it they're guaranteed to binge is not helping them in any way.
The answer to this is easy and pretty interesting. It's the reason the "share" and "like" buttons are popular. It's the same reason why fad diets (or any product, really) take off through word of mouth and anecdotes. Why some people more than others tend to be drawn into a cult mentality. The answer is: because we're human, we're social, and we're self-centered. The combination of all 3 encourages sharing. I don't want to make this long, it's just one of the topics that fascinate me.
Example: Person A talks about looking forward to cheat meal. (sharing out of sense of belonging)
Person B says: It's toxins! (sharing to educate - feeling they have more knowledge in the matter others may not have)
Person C says: You should not call it cheating! (sharing to help prevent failure - feeling they have gone through the same path and they are doing person A a social favor)
Person D says: I'm looking forward to my cheat meal too! (sharing for conformity and, again, sense of belonging)
Person E says: I don't do cheat meals. (sharing to re-affirm self and get a better idea of who they are)
Person F says: I've always wondered about cheat meals, I read this and that. (sharing because it's a topic or a cause they are interested in or feel strongly about)
...etc
Where the conflicts arise is when any of these people speak like there is only one version of "right" and it is theirs.
Same here. It seems people fall into two categories, those who live and let live, and those who take everyone else's behavior or words personally. Seems like all of these threads boil down to people saying the same thing, and arguing because they don't agree on what the definition of "is" is.
If it bothers you, don't participate.
A lot of people enjoy a good debate on semantics. It's entertaining. If it doesn't entertain you, then just click on the red x on the top of the screen and move along. Problem solved.
Found the 2nd group.
Yup, you're right. I enjoy debates. I like being a part of them or just watching them. Which is why I hang out here.
If I didn't enjoy them, I wouldn't hang out here.
Never said that. Using your logic, everyone who asks why people choose one protein powder over another are "bothered" by those who use a different protein powder. Asking why someone logs at the start of the week is being "bothered" by their logging. See the pattern here? I'm not the one with an issue about what other people do, all I did was ask why.
I don't understand where this came from. It has nothing to do with what I posted. I said that if the debates that happen on here bother you, then don't hang out here so much.
I said nothing about "if you respond to other people, you must be bothered by their choices".
apparently, if you question that poster about something that she brought up then it means that what she brought up bothers you....make sense?
Lol. Pot, kettle. You started that game, she just kept playing it.
nope...go back and read the thread...that poster brought it up..I just questioned why it bothered her so much...
You really don't see the irony in what you just said?0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »if you say you gave up smoking but still smoked three cigarettes a week, have you given up smoking?
You tell me, in your own words. A dude goes from a pack a day to 3 cigs a week - what has he done if not given up a lot of cigarettes?
Oh, look, you already did...If you ate 1000 Skittles a day before and only 20 Skittles a day now, you've given up 980 Skittles.
So we both agree that I've given up eating a crap-load of Skittles.
:drinker:
It's a battle of semantics. Here is what is happening:
When you hear someone say: "I used to smoke a pack a day, but I quit smoking." what is the first thing that comes to your mind? What is your reaction when they follow it up with "I now only smoke half a pack".
People are falling back on the most conventional meaning for "give up" (that is, completely abandon a whole food type).
What you are saying is that you did have to make sacrifices and exercise control, that it's not as easy as eating as much as you want whenever you want. You are falling back on an unconventional meaning for "give up" (that is, completely abandon a part of a food type).
Let's just end this mind twist on a middle ground and say that "we had to give up eating more than we burn", otherwise it will devolve into mind boggling things like "everyone in the world is giving up all food".
He's playing and means nothing he says.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
totally agreemamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What does eating 0 skittles instead 20 skittles (rather than the 1000 you want) imply?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yes, but you haven't given up Skittles completely, which is what saying you've given something up implies.
I see you're here to play word games.
Why not just stick to the one about how we all moderate EVERYTHING?
and I'm laughing that we're talking about skittles!
You can't eat 0 of anything. ok let's play mess with gricean pragmatics!
Hey, you left yourself open for that one
Zero consumption of skittles means just that. Zero consumption. You gave them up.
980 Skittles passed by me. I didn't eat a single one. Zero consumption of them. I gave up eating every Skittle that I said "No" to.
For not giving up anything, that's an awful lot of giving up.
but if you ate the other 20 then you did not give them up...
I've given up eating the first 980 no matter what I choose do with the last 20.
For not giving anything up, that's an awful lot of giving up...
And when it comes to the hyper palatable foods, sometimes eating NONE is preferable. TO ME.
It's all a matter of personal preference. And should always be respected as such. As should the exploration.
What I find really ironic is that holding such a narrow, binary view of what constitutes "giving up food" is a pretty solid indication of disordered thinking about food...
Obladi oblada...
You, my friend, are on a role!
0 -
This thread also took a turn in no mans land. But I love to see the arguments!
Are we or aren't we eating the foods we love and still loosing weight? If not, then I need to change my dinner plans..
I know it won't but I hope this thread ends well and those that need a hug gets one or perhaps it may be nap time..0 -
If I don't eat a whole bag of skittles in one sitting I didn't give up on the skittles I didn't eat. I only postponed their inevitable demise to a later date.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »If I don't eat a whole bag of skittles in one sitting I didn't give up on the skittles I didn't eat. I only postponed their inevitable demise to a later date.
Not if you threw them away, then you eliminated the remaining Skittles.
0 -
Like, honestly.
Some of the foods I used to "love" and eat all the time I don't like any more. I used to love sugary, syrupy coffees and very sugary snacks — now they just make me feel a bit sick. I still like well-made, high-quality cake and desserts but the kind of processed garbage I used to eat mindlessly has pretty much no appeal for me now. I feel like it's taboo to say this but I cut a lot of things out of my diet because they had little nutritional merit and discovered I didn't really like the way they tasted anyway, they were just a quick sugar/carb/sodium hit. So I can say I still eat everything I love. But almost none of the things I used to love, because my tastes have changed.0 -
Now why would I ever throw away perfectly good skittles?0
-
raisealittlehell wrote: »I don't think anyone is saying "eat what you want, in the quantities you want and still lose weight" (or if they are I am sure sarcasm plays a major role). Maybe you are taking what people say to literally.
Besides the fact that if anyone believes that they can eat what they want, in mass quantity and still lose weight, they need more help than these message boards provide.
This!!!
I do not eat "diet foods." I eat what I like, only less. Sure I have to sacrifice here or there. If I want an egg, bacon, and cheese sandwich on a hard roll, I will have to give up something else - either eat a lighter breakfast and make that sandwich my lunch - or eat a lighter supper, or work out more to burn off the additional 200 calories that sandwich adds to my normal lunch.
I choose not to drink soda very often because I loathe the taste of diet soda, and in general I'd rather have my calories to spend on food, not drinks. I also don't drink many lattes anymore because they're so calorie heavy that I don't want to spend the calories on them. BUT...if I wanted one, I'd make room for it.
I think it's more of a mindset than anything. I'm not DEPRIVING myself, I'm asking myself "Is this worth the calories?" and if I decide yes it is, I have it and make room for it. If I don't, then I don't feel sad or mad that I can't have it.
I also have made changes in that before I often ate for the sake of eating, even if I didn't really love what I was eating (i.e., some of my husband's Twizzlers, or some chips, or having a dessert at someone's house.) Now, I only spend calories on something I know I am truly going to love....
Hope that makes sense.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »asflatasapancake wrote: »I think I've heard this before, but why are some people in picture jail again?
Just means they are MFP all-stars.
Got it. I thought it was a chastity belt that only a person with a pure heart who defeated a mighty dragon could open with a chocolate key. My bad.
That was the old MFP.
So your doubting my dragon slaying skills now????0 -
I did not give up Skittles, because I never ate Skittles.
Anyway, I really don't think "I still eat the foods I love" implies that you eat them in an unlimited amount. Obviously not, or you wouldn't lose weight (after having gained too much, anyway).
The main reason I started gaining weight wasn't related to changing how I ate (from how I'd been maintaining at about 125) at all. Instead, I went from training for endurance sports (triathlon) to being basically sedentary (giving me a maintenance of 1600 or less) and yet didn't change my eating. To deal with that problem I've gotten active again.
I also gained a bunch of weight being careless with portion size. Related to that, things I changed were: being more careful with portion size and not wasting calories on things (like pasta) where I was perfectly satisfied with a normal portion or less but would always misjudge and then just finish what was on my plate because. Also, making myself eat reasonable portions in restaurants and not just keep eating so long as the food tasted good.
Another thing I changed is that I go to nice/interesting restaurants quite frequently (1-2 times per week), and yet was acting as if it was a rare special occasion worthy of an appetizer shared with the table, salad, main course, and dessert. I stopped that. Now I order a reasonable amount of food, eat a reasonable portion of it, and have restaurant desserts on rare special occasions only.
After I had gained a bunch of weight I started doing some other silly things and my diet got worse, in part because I was depressed and stressed about other things, in part because I figured I was already fat so one perk was it didn't matter what I ate. Around this time I started eating a bagel for breakfast (I now eat as many calories, but in much more healthy and filling form). This probably contributed to me not having much will power to resist whatever random food appeared in my office, which I considered a sign that I was willed by God to eat it (joking, mostly). So I ate that stuff. Now I only eat it if it's really special and worth it and I make sure to fit it into my day by eating less of something else.
I also started using being tired and stressed as an excuse to order Indian food about 2 nights a week (I would often have leftovers for breakfast or dinner the next night or both). Now I go out for Indian once every month or two and split things with friends so I don't have leftovers.
I also would quite often buy lunch and decide "it's been a bad day, I'll buy a cookie," without really paying attention to the fact that the cookie had as many calories as my usual lunch. I wouldn't be hungry, but I'd eat the cookie anyway, because I deserved it. I still eat cookies (or other sweets) from time to time, but way less often.
On the other hand, I rarely ate ice cream before I started losing weight. I really loved it, but would mostly just buy a pint once in a while and when I did eat it in two sittings (I also might get it at a restaurant). Now I have at least 2 pints in my freezer and typically eat a half cup multiple nights a week. For whatever reason ice cream works for me as a pleasant post-dinner sweet that isn't all that high in calories, never creates an excuse (like I might go bad!) to overeat like homemade baked goods do, and which I prefer to almost any other store-bought sweet. (I've never criticized anyone who prefers to eat it less often in larger quantities, though. That's how I usually feel about pizza.)0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »Now why would I ever throw away perfectly good skittles?
I threw away green gummy bears the other day.
I could understand the white ones, but green? Monster.0 -
Pizza instead of a whole pizza I have 4 slices. So instead of 5000kj it's more like 2500.
Kfc I get regular sizes not large. But I haven't had kfc in a while, damn weightloss means lower energy requirements.
Subway less bmt, no cheese, and sometimes a foot long sometimes 6 inches
The only thing I can think of that I cut right back on was creamy pasta salad. I used to eat BBQ chicken, lettuce, creamy pasta salad, honey mustard and French onion dip rolls. Haven't had one in ages.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions