The truth about "I still eat the foods I love"
Replies
-
Yes. What changes have you made in the quantity/frequency of certain foods that allow you to still include them while still losing weight.barbecuesauce wrote: »Confused. Are you asking specifically how we do it?
It is really pretty simple. The goal is to keep calories in/calories out at the right level. Certain foods I don't care all that much about, but I just ate as a habit, I cut out. That was ice cream for me. Other foods I keep in and just make sure to make them fit my day. I do that either by eating less, or exercising more depending on whatever it is. As an example, I don't want just one piece of pizza, and it is not physically possible for me to stop at one, or even three. So if know I'm going to eat pizza later I'll go an extra hour on the mountain bike that day or whatever.0 -
1.) I run a lot...days I run longer I allow myself to eat more (date night, for example-we go out for dinner so usually that's more calorie-dense)
2.) I am obsessed with peanut butter cups. So instead I buy 70-80% cacao and all natural peanut butter. Satisfies the craving for fewer calories (and it doesn't take as much either)
3.) Coffee (I downgraded from heavy cream to half and half to whole milk to 2% most of the time)
4.) Bread (I don't eat bread or bread products nearly as often as I used to. Used to do cereal or toast for breakfast almost every day-now I do eggs, fruit, nuts, nut butter...occasionally toast...but I don't eat it as often as I used to)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:
no, you reduced your intake of skittles but are still eating some.
if you are still smoking three cigarettes a week then you are still smoking.
the skittle example is yours not mine, I just requoted it.0 -
One thing that disconcerts me a little on these boards is that when someone writes in about foods they are giving up, there is a chorus which replies "I've lost X and I still eat the foods I love". 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.
So let's list some of the ways we have made changes in the way we eat certain foods to give a more realistic picture of what successful weight loss entails. Here are some changes I've made to still fit foods I love into my calorie allowance:
Ice Cream - I'm lucky in that I never ate big quantities, but ate reasonable amounts at high frequency. I've cut back from 1/2C 3 times a week to 1/2C once or twice a month
Soda - Again, never been a huge quantity drinker, but now I drink just 6 oz a few days per week
Pasta - I would eat a massive serving of mac'n'cheese (homemade) - probably 1500 calories. Now when I eat pasta I have about 3oz in a sauce full of veggies and no cheese or cream
Chips - I've pretty much cut these out completely, b/c even a 400 calorie bag doesn't sate me at all - just leaves me wanting another bag (and a big gulp along with it)
Cookies/Cakes - I would just mindlessly go back to the bag or box and take more without realizing how much I ate. Now I take a serving which fits in my day, put away the box, sit down at the table w/a cup of tea and actually savor it.
Cereal - I would start a medley of adding more cereal to finish the milk, then adding more milk to finish the cereal, and probably had 4 cups + 2 cups of milk before it was through. Now I measure out my serving (usually 1.5 times 'suggested'), finish it, and that's that.
Nice post. Thanks
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:
Are you bored or something?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?0 -
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.0 -
If I want something that doesn't necessarily sing out "healthy", I have a search about for a low calorie or at least healthier recipe than the original item - for example I now make my own chocolate oaty brownies and eat one or (very occasionally) two 4x4cm sq. slices rather than scoffing an entire Tesco Choc-fudge brownie tray bake!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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You want to get into semantics...
what if I eat 20 Skittles out of the bag, but throw away the other 980. Then the next time I want 20 Skittle, I open a new bag and throw away the 980 again.... Wouldn't those 980 be eliminated since they were thrown away never to be eaten again?
I don't really want an answer...this thread is just funny now.0 -
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.0 -
But I DO still eat the foods I love - the point when posting this is generally to those who think they have to completely cut out certain foods or even food groups, which is ridiculous, unless you've got an allergy or something.
My diary is wide open - anyone can view it and see that I don't eat pizza and burgers all day long, but I do eat them frequently, along with any other food I might like to have - it fits into my goals.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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...0 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »
Frequency shouldn't matter if portions are reasonable. One can eat whatever they like everyday, they just have to be accounted for when counting calories."bennettinfinity wrote:
You're right, though, you can have the foods you enjoy but you have to be mindful of quantities and frequencies. I think we parallel roughly, but here's my list:
Right - I can't eat a pint of ice cream every day and since I won't eat less than a pint, I'll have a pint on those days I burn a higher number of calories - we're saying the same thing.
Yep yep. A smaller serving of some items would just make me angry, even if it's the right serving. So for those I either don't eat them at all, or consume them at "decent" (to me) quantities with much less frequency
0 -
AmyRhubarb wrote: »But I DO still eat the foods I love - the point when posting this is generally to those who think they have to completely cut out certain foods or even food groups, which is ridiculous, unless you've got an allergy or something.
My diary is wide open - anyone can view it and see that I don't eat pizza and burgers all day long, but I do eat them frequently, along with any other food I might like to have - it fits into my goals.
Great! Glad you've found what works for you.
That you think others' approaches are "ridiculous" is what's, well, ridiculous.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »I think I've heard this before, but why are some people in picture jail again?
He's a cage dancer in his down time.
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...
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 -
This content has been removed.
-
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
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
- 424 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