The truth about "I still eat the foods I love"
Replies
-
Moderation is just another way of saying you try to prioritize your calorie spending.
Just like some people drive old cars but have brand new cell phones...or use old cell phones and have every cable channel, or clip coupons to save for a room upgrade on the next family vacation...it's about budgeting. You cut back on the stuff that isn't as important to you, so you can enjoy the stuff that is.
And, seriously, you want to talk about people crapping on "what works for them?" OP started to talk about the real practical ways people make treats fit into their calorie and macro goals. I don't think "WAH, If I can't eat a half gallon of ice cream, it's not worth it! The only people who can eat a single serving are the Borrowers!" is really addressing the question on the table.0 -
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.
why does that bother you so much? It is a public internet forum and people are going to comment on whatever they feel like...
and if it truly does both you just ignore it and don't reply.0 -
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.
why does that bother you so much? It is a public internet forum and people are going to comment on whatever they feel like...
and if it truly does both you just ignore it and don't reply.
That's what I was thinking.
It boggles my mind less when a person puts in his or her $.02 than it does that a person posts on a public forum, apparently for input, then objects strenuously, as apparently the only acceptable answer was "I agree. Have a really awesome day."
That's not communication, that's *kitten*. IMO of course. I mean if the only input I want is a slavish "You are RIGHT and always are!," I'll bribe my kids with cookies. They'll agree to say anything in the presence of a cookie.
0 -
Err No. To give up is to totally stop. There is not one food I have given up.If you're restricting calories, you're giving up foods you love. There is no other way.
It can be dressed up as "eat less of them" or "eat them in moderation" but it's all just various forms of restriction that require sacrifice and discipline.
0 -
NOne of this is sacrifice, just eating reasonable portions. Should I go on to talk about how I do this with chicken, salmon, rice, fruits, veggies, oil, etc?
perhaps sacrifice is too strong a word, but it's clearly a measured change. If it weren't you wouldn't have had to make the changes to begin with, as you would have been doing this all along.
My point of this post was that 1) It is necessary to add the modifier 'in moderation' when one says they still eat all the foods they like and more importantly 2) give some examples of what 'moderation' means to you, so that others on or beginning this change in their eating habits has an idea of what normal is (and what abnormal was).
And yet the change took virtually no effort. Once I stopped looking at food as being "bad," the only effort that was required was logging the portion before eating it.
Well, aren't you special?
I'm not ashamed to admit, I still struggle every day. Hence, I still have 35lbs left to lose. I've actually done really well for nearly the last 2 weeks, staying in my calories nearly every day, and exercising. Alas, no weight loss yet.
No, I'm not special. I've simply pointed out that for me it was not a sacrifice and as such change was easy.
It's definitely not easy and definitely a sacrifice for me. I'm not gonna lie. There are still days when I want to eat a whole pint of ice cream or a box of cookies, but the guilt that comes after just isn't worth it. And of course I have to make some sacrifices... I go to bed hungry more often than I'd like to admit, and sometimes it sucks when everyone is having noodles with their dinner but I'm too low on calories to have some.
If it was 'easy' and no sacrifice was involved, 95% of people wouldn't gain the weight back. Just saying.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.
Depends on the circumstances though. A lot of people post asking about cheat meals (I assume they have no experience with online forums and the search function at this point), so obviously they're going to get different answers. Those threads drive me nuts though, it's always the same arguments over and over... ugh.
I've had days where I've eaten more than I should, never felt guilty. Maybe that's something to work on? Having one day of over-eating (even above TDEE) won't mean all results are negated. Perhaps a lack of guilt helps me make better portion choices, though. LIke yesterday I just thought "eh, I'll have another cookie tomorrow!" and that was that. Didn't feel the urge to subsequently eat them all anymore.
Also, how many of those 95% of people would you guess also restricted calories quite severely and/or didn't allow themselves to eat any "bad" food while losing weight? I fell into the latter, that definitely wasn't easy and I did regain.0 -
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.
why does that bother you so much? It is a public internet forum and people are going to comment on whatever they feel like...
and if it truly does both you just ignore it and don't reply.
Asking a question != being bothered. You seem to project that on to me any time I don't agree lockstep with whatever you've said. Seems more like your issue than mine.0 -
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.
I get trying to give pointers to newbies (like I believe was the original intent of this thread), or to warn people that have espoused dangerous activity. There *are* some absolutes and the forums are good for communicating them.
But to your point, threads that boil down to 'I achieved results doing X' vs. 'I achieved results doing Y' do serve a purpose, if for no other reason than to spark curiosity. I lurked on the forums for a good 6 months when I started using MFP and learned a lot (though I did have to use a good deal of internal filtering and independent research).
I always felt that this was the primary purpose of the forums here. My post count is low because I don't generally get dragged into arguments. If I post on a thread, I tend to post once - something that's geared more towards giving lurkers something to think about than to argue with other thread participants (as the odds of changing someone's mind is pretty close to nil).0 -
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.
why does that bother you so much? It is a public internet forum and people are going to comment on whatever they feel like...
and if it truly does both you just ignore it and don't reply.
Asking a question != being bothered. You seem to project that on to me any time I don't agree lockstep with whatever you've said. Seems more like your issue than mine.
way to move the goalposts...
I am not projecting anything on you. You said "why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? < that statement has absolutely nothing to do about me or you agreeing with me.
My question is - why does it bother you so much if people post in a thread and have an opposite statement to make? It is a public forum....and if it bothers you so much just ignore it...
Or do you just think that all OPs should be given 100% validation???0 -
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.
why does that bother you so much? It is a public internet forum and people are going to comment on whatever they feel like...
and if it truly does both you just ignore it and don't reply.
Asking a question != being bothered. You seem to project that on to me any time I don't agree lockstep with whatever you've said. Seems more like your issue than mine.
way to move the goalposts...
I am not projecting anything on you. You said "why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? < that statement has absolutely nothing to do about me or you agreeing with me.
My question is - why does it bother you so much if people post in a thread and have an opposite statement to make? It is a public forum....and if it bothers you so much just ignore it...
Or do you just think that all OPs should be given 100% validation???
It doesn't. Why does someone asking why bother you so much?0 -
It gives off the vibe of a Slimfast commercial and implies that there is something magical where you make no sacrifices but still lose weight. Of course we all know that isn't true, and you do have to moderate your intake of certain foods.
The word "sacrifice" is a subjective term. What you may consider to be a sarifice may not be what someone else considers to be the same. Due to my personal experiences starving and dieting miserably in the past, I consider it to be darn near amazing that I can eat a moderate amount of the foods I love and lose weight. I don't consider it a sacrifice in the least.
Touching on the issue of sacrifice, I'm actually making less in the way of sacrifices now because I eat higher quality foods.
If I'm going to eat smaller amounts of everything (this includes my yogurt and cottage cheese), I want it to be the stuff I really, really think is the best I've tasted.
I eat small (reasonable portion sizes) amounts of butter, olive oil, ice cream, and bean pasta. I get the good stuff and savor it.
Before I started restricting calories, I used to go through a lot of yogurt, and I bought a different brand because the brand I use now was just too expensive for how quickly I'd go through a tub. Now? It's worth the price because smaller portions mean the tub lasts. And it tastes so much better.
0 -
MarkJCherry wrote: »restricting doesn't mean giving up though. I eat less Skyline, but I didn't give it up.
You gave up most of it.
0 -
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.
why does that bother you so much? It is a public internet forum and people are going to comment on whatever they feel like...
and if it truly does both you just ignore it and don't reply.
Asking a question != being bothered. You seem to project that on to me any time I don't agree lockstep with whatever you've said. Seems more like your issue than mine.
way to move the goalposts...
I am not projecting anything on you. You said "why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? < that statement has absolutely nothing to do about me or you agreeing with me.
My question is - why does it bother you so much if people post in a thread and have an opposite statement to make? It is a public forum....and if it bothers you so much just ignore it...
Or do you just think that all OPs should be given 100% validation???
It doesn't. Why does someone asking why bother you so much?
I am not the one that posed the question. You did, so obviously you take issue with it. I want to know why it is a big enough deal that you are complaining about it?
Or are you saying that is now not what you are doing?0 -
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
0 -
TL;DR.
It may also be worth mentioning that some of us may not feel like cessation of an activity is a loss. When I am insulin resistant (which happens when my weight goes up) I get VERY HUNGRY ever 3-4 hours and I am a BEAR if I don't eat breakfast. When I'm at a good weight and in my "normal" state with a healthy response to insulin, I can easily forget breakfast, because I'm not hungry, and likely won't be terribly interested in food until nearly 3:00 in the afternoon.
I'm not "giving up" anything really. I still eat eggs and ham and sausage and pancakes. I just eat them at dinner time. And I eat them until I am super-full, because I'm not stretching 1500 calories over 3 meals. I'm trying to get it in ONE.0 -
This pretty much echoes my feelings but you do have to keep in mind the different calorie goals people have. It's definitely eye roll inducing to hear someone bragging about how they eat ice cream every day only to see they're putting down a whopping 3 spoonfuls in the middle of the 1600 calories they're allotted. On the flip side of that you do have people who are really eating a pint of ice cream after a half of a pizza because they're bulking or they have a job that requires they walk 9 million miles a day on top of the 2 hours they work out each day. The real takeaway is don't put so much stock in other people. Mostly because people are crap but also because you have to do what works for you because that's all that really matters.
You're still here?
Stating that one eats x and y within their calories isn't bragging. Doesn't matter if their goal is 1500 calories or 3000 calories.
You really need to stop complaining about this subject ad nauseam.
It's kind of bragging. It usually follows someone saying how they gave up something and it helped them. Right off the bat you'll get 10 "but I eat X and Y daily!!!!!!" OK. So? Good for you that you want to squeeze in .3454545 nano liters of ice cream a day but to some people it's not even worth it. It's basically people wanting to brag about how wild and free they are with their food when really they're almost insanely controlled with it.
And you're complaining at the other end that a small serving isn't enough for you.
Has it occurred to you that for the people for whom the small serving is enough that maybe just maybe they've worked through an issue they used to have where it wasn't enough and it's a victory?
Oh yeah, I'm projecting from personal experience, I used to sit down with a whole carton of ice cream and blindly eat through half. And now I can eat even a 1/4 serving of deeply flavored quality gelato and be satisfied. You know why? I've dealt with all of my issues surrounding food and what led me to the disordered full-on binging with me and my cartons of ice cream.
Think about my not-so-subtly veiled message to you here. You likely have more calories than me in a day to get in a full serving of gelato so, have at it. I don't always. I'm not complaining, I'm quite happy with what I can fit in.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
And we've come full circle to the semantics of "moderation" again. It's not even an April fools joke.0
-
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol
...would be the accurate definition of "giving up" and "restricting"...
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol
Yeah...giving up 98% doesn't mean anything, but giving up 2% means everything.
MFP logic....
For Act 2 the argument will probably be that even if you don't eat them at all it's not "giving up" because there are still some within driving distance that you *could* eat....
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol
...would be the accurate definition of "giving up" and "restricting"...
sure. Not my point, but sure.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol
Yeah...giving up 98% doesn't mean anything, but giving up 2% means everything.
MFP logic....
BINGO0 -
Hmm, none of those really fits a "Lent" style "giving up" though does it.If you're restricting calories, you're giving up foods you love. There is no other way.
It can be dressed up as "eat less of them" or "eat them in moderation" but it's all just various forms of restriction that require sacrifice and discipline.
Give up:
to cease doing or attempting something especially as an admission of defeat
to desist from : abandon
and if we take Abandon to be synonymous with give up, then:
: to leave and never return to (something)
Moderation:
a : tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension
avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits <a moderate drinker>
Give up thus entails not consuming something at all, period. Moderation entails consuming that item in smaller amounts. Neither are the same thing. The latter requires no sacrifice on my part while the former does.
So no, in my caloric deficit I've not had to abandon or give up any particular food item, why would it be assumed that this is required? Moderation of all food items? Yes, but again that is not at all giving them up.
0 -
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.
0 -
OMG, this again! Some people are moderators, some are abstainers. Be honest with yourself on where you stand on the spectrum and adjust your behavior accordingly.0
-
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.
why does that bother you so much? It is a public internet forum and people are going to comment on whatever they feel like...
and if it truly does both you just ignore it and don't reply.
Asking a question != being bothered. You seem to project that on to me any time I don't agree lockstep with whatever you've said. Seems more like your issue than mine.
way to move the goalposts...
I am not projecting anything on you. You said "why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? < that statement has absolutely nothing to do about me or you agreeing with me.
My question is - why does it bother you so much if people post in a thread and have an opposite statement to make? It is a public forum....and if it bothers you so much just ignore it...
Or do you just think that all OPs should be given 100% validation???
It doesn't. Why does someone asking why bother you so much?
I am not the one that posed the question. You did, so obviously you take issue with it. I want to know why it is a big enough deal that you are complaining about it?
Or are you saying that is now not what you are doing?
I'm asking a question. No complaint, no being bothered, just part of the conversation. Other people seemed to have no problem offering their opinion. If it bothers you so much, don't read it.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol
Yeah...giving up 98% doesn't mean anything, but giving up 2% means everything.
MFP logic....
BINGO
Lol - so true.0 -
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?
0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions