Matt Lauer proving why no-sugar does't work
Replies
-
maillemaker wrote: »3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
Usually, none at all. 3 cookies I'm just getting warmed up to the taste of cookies. It's too easy for 3 cookies to turn into 6. Typically if I "fit in" a treat, it's at the expense of a meal. Or I just go over on my calories for the day.It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'm sure it is. But then you have to balance that lower deficit with less spectacular weight loss results, and for me anyway, it's the results that make the suffering worthwhile. Lackluster results and you start wondering why you are bothering with the suffering.That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps just the next 5 weeks or 5 months until you gain some confidence and stamina in controlling what you eat.In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Of course. But not everyone can do that right out of the blocks.Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
If it works, it's not silly.
Do you plan, at some point, on realizing that you have bad habits where these foods are concerned?
I don't think any moderation proponent argues that it's always easy, but one of the things we all need to learn are proper portion sizes for all foods in order to maintain healthy weights. That includes things like our protein sources, fats, and veggies -- not just the treats.
That's the essence of moderation. Simply learn to moderate your intake of EVERYTHING to suit your calorie goals. If you've had a weight problem, obviously, you've had trouble doing this.
If you're not learning new habits while losing weight, maintaining weight loss will be more difficult for you.
It's sometimes much needed for people to refrain from eating problematic foods for a while if it's too hard to deal with moderating their intake of nutrient-dense foods AND treat foods at the same time. It's a lot to do at once. At some point, though, it's a good idea to start thinking ahead to the long term and how you plan to deal with the rest of your life.
The occasional blow out where you eat a big hunk of cheesecake and make up the calories later is fine, but an ongoing ... clinging to the idea that you just CAN'T have sweets unless you EAT ALL THE COOKIES!!!!! is just self-defeatist and not playing the long game.
Challenge yourself at some point when you think you're ready. Sit down with three cookies and eat them slowly, taking small bites, and taking the time to chew thoroughly. Then go for a walk afterward to get away from where they are so you can't have any more. You might surprise yourself if you change your attitude.
0 -
They are sneakily pandering to corporate food giants who do not give a crap about your health. Why are they not stating the obvious? Stop eating processed food. It's not just the sugar, it's the emulsifiers, fillers, unhealthy fats, food dyes, preservatives, all the chemicals that hitch along.0
-
They are sneakily pandering to corporate food giants who do not give a crap about your health. Why are they not stating the obvious? Stop eating processed food. It's not just the sugar, it's the emulsifiers, fillers, unhealthy fats, food dyes, preservatives, all the chemicals that hitch along.
Processed foods are a giant category. For example, Fage plain greek yogurt, Bob's Red Mill steel cut oats, dried pasta, smoked salmon.
I don't see why I would benefit from not eating these foods or many other such.0 -
People who do not have the self-discipline to go to work every day or earn a living for themselves do not deserve to be rich or successful.maillemaker wrote: »I'm not missing the point of moderation. I understand fully what the point of moderation is. What I'm telling you is that not everyone has the self-discipline for moderation.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »They are sneakily pandering to corporate food giants who do not give a crap about your health. Why are they not stating the obvious? Stop eating processed food. It's not just the sugar, it's the emulsifiers, fillers, unhealthy fats, food dyes, preservatives, all the chemicals that hitch along.
Processed foods are a giant category. For example, Fage plain greek yogurt, Bob's Red Mill steel cut oats, dried pasta, smoked salmon.
I don't see why I would benefit from not eating these foods or many other such.
True. I think "overly processed foods" would be more appropriate in that post. Though, not all of those are bad either. It's really best to evaluate each food individually. But if you just don't want to be bothered with researching every ingredient and food, I think "limiting overly processed foods" isn't a bad general rule.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »They are sneakily pandering to corporate food giants who do not give a crap about your health. Why are they not stating the obvious? Stop eating processed food. It's not just the sugar, it's the emulsifiers, fillers, unhealthy fats, food dyes, preservatives, all the chemicals that hitch along.
Processed foods are a giant category. For example, Fage plain greek yogurt, Bob's Red Mill steel cut oats, dried pasta, smoked salmon.
I don't see why I would benefit from not eating these foods or many other such.
Not to mention milk, anything frozen, baked, canned, etc.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
People who do not have the self-discipline to go to work every day or earn a living for themselves do not deserve to be rich or successful.maillemaker wrote: »I'm not missing the point of moderation. I understand fully what the point of moderation is. What I'm telling you is that not everyone has the self-discipline for moderation.
And yet some are, while some that do go to work every day and earn a living for themselves never get there. Life is funny.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »They are sneakily pandering to corporate food giants who do not give a crap about your health. Why are they not stating the obvious? Stop eating processed food. It's not just the sugar, it's the emulsifiers, fillers, unhealthy fats, food dyes, preservatives, all the chemicals that hitch along.
Processed foods are a giant category. For example, Fage plain greek yogurt, Bob's Red Mill steel cut oats, dried pasta, smoked salmon.
I don't see why I would benefit from not eating these foods or many other such.
True. I think "overly processed foods" would be more appropriate in that post. Though, not all of those are bad either. It's really best to evaluate each food individually.
This is my view.0 -
You don't need fingernails either. So what? It doesn't mean we should form a no-fingernail group and use it as a launching pad to flood the forums with posts telling people they should try to live without fingernails.MoiAussi93 wrote: »You do not need carbs. At all. Zero. Now, I do eat carbs, but not because I would die if I didn't. I happen to like nuts and dairy too much to never eat carbs.
But if you wanted to it is very simple. Just east only foods with fat or protein. It's really not complicated.
0 -
You can survive without eating carbs just like you can lose weight eating only Twinkies. Why does this matter? Neither is particularly healthy or something I'd advise. Most people will do much better eating, you know, vegetables, as well as many other foods with carbs in them.
As for the actual ratio, I think that depends on personal preference, specific health issues, goals, etc.0 -
http://www.today.com/health/how-many-calories-pound-3-things-about-calories-you-may-t33986
I think this is the segment about calorie counting.0 -
And you're still losing? Have you made it to goal weight successfully and maintained?
Yes, I am still losing.
No, I have never in my whole life made it to a goal weight nor maintained. Like most people, I have never successfully kept weight off long-term.Because you seem self-assured for someone who is still struggling with the journey. Do what you want, but if you're still struggling with weight loss and haven't figured it out yet, arguing with people who have successfully lost and maintained seems rather silly.
Stomp your feet and turn purple and insist you want to stay overweight, then.
I am very self-assured about my own feelings, because I am the one feeling them. I can also tell, from reading here and people in real life, that many, many people experience the same feelings.
I am very self-assured that many people, myself included, do not or did not have the mental strength to succeed with moderation, at least at first.
Stomp your feet and turn purple if you insist that no one is like that, then.
0 -
Sorry, but this is bs. I gave up sugar (aside from fruit) 3 years ago and haven't looked back. Your taste buds do change, but it takes more than 10 days. Now candy makes me gag and most cakes and cookies are way too sweet for my taste. And I used to binge on these things... moderation never worked for me. But complete avoidance did/does.
I think it's great that avoidance works for you, that you found something successful. What I was talking about in my original post, is not bs, either, it's just another method to try that works quite often.
Actually, it is. You made a statement based on a silly experiment where people gave up sugar for 10 days. You specifically stated that giving up sugar "does not work." Actually, it does. Taste buds change. But not in 10 days.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You can survive without eating carbs just like you can lose weight eating only Twinkies. Why does this matter? Neither is particularly healthy or something I'd advise. Most people will do much better eating, you know, vegetables, as well as many other foods with carbs in them.
As for the actual ratio, I think that depends on personal preference, specific health issues, goals, etc.spacequiztime wrote: »http://www.today.com/health/how-many-calories-pound-3-things-about-calories-you-may-t33986
I think this is the segment about calorie counting.
Yep - Today's segment in that series made me think of half of the forum "debates" I've seen on here. The nutritionist says as long as you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight but "not all calories are equal" and encouraged people to use most of their calories on more nutrient-dense foods even though you will still lose weight by just staying under that calorie goal. When Honest Matt asked if you can eat anything you want as long as it is within those calories, she responded with yes but do you want to just lose weight or do you want to lose weight and have energy...
I think that both the "eat in moderation" and "restrict certain foods" camps can agree on that.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
Usually, none at all. 3 cookies I'm just getting warmed up to the taste of cookies. It's too easy for 3 cookies to turn into 6. Typically if I "fit in" a treat, it's at the expense of a meal. Or I just go over on my calories for the day.It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'm sure it is. But then you have to balance that lower deficit with less spectacular weight loss results, and for me anyway, it's the results that make the suffering worthwhile. Lackluster results and you start wondering why you are bothering with the suffering.That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps just the next 5 weeks or 5 months until you gain some confidence and stamina in controlling what you eat.In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Of course. But not everyone can do that right out of the blocks.Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
If it works, it's not silly.
And you're still losing? Have you made it to goal weight successfully and maintained? Because you seem self-assured for someone who is still struggling with the journey.
Wow.
What is it with you? You're taking cheap, personal shots at people all over the boards, many of them working their butts off to succeed.
Are you trying to prove that getting to goal weight doesn't improve people's personalities?
If that's the case....mission accomplished.
0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You can survive without eating carbs just like you can lose weight eating only Twinkies. Why does this matter? Neither is particularly healthy or something I'd advise. Most people will do much better eating, you know, vegetables, as well as many other foods with carbs in them.
As for the actual ratio, I think that depends on personal preference, specific health issues, goals, etc.spacequiztime wrote: »http://www.today.com/health/how-many-calories-pound-3-things-about-calories-you-may-t33986
I think this is the segment about calorie counting.
Yep - Today's segment in that series made me think of half of the forum "debates" I've seen on here. The nutritionist says as long as you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight but "not all calories are equal" and encouraged people to use most of their calories on more nutrient-dense foods even though you will still lose weight by just staying under that calorie goal. When Honest Matt asked if you can eat anything you want as long as it is within those calories, she responded with yes but do you want to just lose weight or do you want to lose weight and have energy...
I think that both the "eat in moderation" and "restrict certain foods" camps can agree on that.
Yup. Glad to see the follow up for calorie counting was so level headed.0 -
maillemaker wrote: »3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
Usually, none at all. 3 cookies I'm just getting warmed up to the taste of cookies. It's too easy for 3 cookies to turn into 6. Typically if I "fit in" a treat, it's at the expense of a meal. Or I just go over on my calories for the day.It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'm sure it is. But then you have to balance that lower deficit with less spectacular weight loss results, and for me anyway, it's the results that make the suffering worthwhile. Lackluster results and you start wondering why you are bothering with the suffering.That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps just the next 5 weeks or 5 months until you gain some confidence and stamina in controlling what you eat.In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Of course. But not everyone can do that right out of the blocks.Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
If it works, it's not silly.
And you're still losing? Have you made it to goal weight successfully and maintained? Because you seem self-assured for someone who is still struggling with the journey.
Wow.
What is it with you? You're taking cheap, personal shots at people all over the boards, many of them working their butts off to succeed.
Are you trying to prove that getting to goal weight doesn't improve people's personalities?
If that's the case....mission accomplished.
+1. I've been wanting to say something like this for a couple of days now.
0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You can survive without eating carbs just like you can lose weight eating only Twinkies. Why does this matter? Neither is particularly healthy or something I'd advise. Most people will do much better eating, you know, vegetables, as well as many other foods with carbs in them.
As for the actual ratio, I think that depends on personal preference, specific health issues, goals, etc.spacequiztime wrote: »http://www.today.com/health/how-many-calories-pound-3-things-about-calories-you-may-t33986
I think this is the segment about calorie counting.
Yep - Today's segment in that series made me think of half of the forum "debates" I've seen on here. The nutritionist says as long as you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight but "not all calories are equal" and encouraged people to use most of their calories on more nutrient-dense foods even though you will still lose weight by just staying under that calorie goal. When Honest Matt asked if you can eat anything you want as long as it is within those calories, she responded with yes but do you want to just lose weight or do you want to lose weight and have energy...
I think that both the "eat in moderation" and "restrict certain foods" camps can agree on that.
I agree.0 -
The fact that you're done losing weight doesn't make your opinion more valid than anyone else's.maillemaker wrote: »3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
Usually, none at all. 3 cookies I'm just getting warmed up to the taste of cookies. It's too easy for 3 cookies to turn into 6. Typically if I "fit in" a treat, it's at the expense of a meal. Or I just go over on my calories for the day.It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'm sure it is. But then you have to balance that lower deficit with less spectacular weight loss results, and for me anyway, it's the results that make the suffering worthwhile. Lackluster results and you start wondering why you are bothering with the suffering.That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps just the next 5 weeks or 5 months until you gain some confidence and stamina in controlling what you eat.In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Of course. But not everyone can do that right out of the blocks.Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
If it works, it's not silly.
And you're still losing? Have you made it to goal weight successfully and maintained? Because you seem self-assured for someone who is still struggling with the journey. Do what you want, but if you're still struggling with weight loss and haven't figured it out yet, arguing with people who have successfully lost and maintained seems rather silly.
Stomp your feet and turn purple and insist you want to stay overweight, then.
Geez.0 -
I think sugar should be eaten in moderation. However, due to the addictive nature of sugar and its devastating effects on the body if overconsumed, a person could benefit from going no sugar for a time. It makes people aware of how prevalent it is (ketchup! coleslaw!) and decreases their taste for sweets.
When people have more control over themselves, and trained their palates for less sweet and their stomach for less volume, they can use sugar in moderation. If people were good at moderation in the first place, they wouldn't need to lose weight.
0 -
Changing a palate does take some time. It isn't just learning what other things you like. It's also getting used to different tastes.
When I cut the salt, everthing tasted horrid. I kept going back to the salt because I had so much trouble adjusting. It took a long time to find new ways to make food taste good, but it took even longer to appreciate them.
Same deal with sweets. Same deal with everything. You have to find something else you like and give it time.
Tastes can be changed, though.
You can eventually get yourself to where you like fruit as much as you used to like candy. If you want to do it and you put in some effort, it can happen.
0 -
She even mentioned a nice glass of wine!Kimberly_Harper wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You can survive without eating carbs just like you can lose weight eating only Twinkies. Why does this matter? Neither is particularly healthy or something I'd advise. Most people will do much better eating, you know, vegetables, as well as many other foods with carbs in them.
As for the actual ratio, I think that depends on personal preference, specific health issues, goals, etc.spacequiztime wrote: »http://www.today.com/health/how-many-calories-pound-3-things-about-calories-you-may-t33986
I think this is the segment about calorie counting.
Yep - Today's segment in that series made me think of half of the forum "debates" I've seen on here. The nutritionist says as long as you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight but "not all calories are equal" and encouraged people to use most of their calories on more nutrient-dense foods even though you will still lose weight by just staying under that calorie goal. When Honest Matt asked if you can eat anything you want as long as it is within those calories, she responded with yes but do you want to just lose weight or do you want to lose weight and have energy...
I think that both the "eat in moderation" and "restrict certain foods" camps can agree on that.
Yup. Glad to see the follow up for calorie counting was so level headed.
0 -
maillemaker wrote: »3 Oreos is one serving, and 1/2 cup of ice cream is one serving. The mind set of moderation is learning to understand that when you eat something, you have one serving of it, and enjoy it. Would you rather have that one serving of it, or have none at all? I don't see what's wrong with having 3 cookies.
Usually, none at all. 3 cookies I'm just getting warmed up to the taste of cookies. It's too easy for 3 cookies to turn into 6. Typically if I "fit in" a treat, it's at the expense of a meal. Or I just go over on my calories for the day.It's also easier to practice moderation and work treats in when people have a moderate calorie deficit as opposed to an very high deficit. Although that's a topic that has been previously argued with you before to death, so I'm just going to leave it there.
I'm sure it is. But then you have to balance that lower deficit with less spectacular weight loss results, and for me anyway, it's the results that make the suffering worthwhile. Lackluster results and you start wondering why you are bothering with the suffering.That's a stupid saying because it's only applicable if all you care about is the next 5 minutes. It's not reasonable for the vast majority of people to expect to be able to avoid temptation for the rest of your life.
Or perhaps just the next 5 weeks or 5 months until you gain some confidence and stamina in controlling what you eat.In the long term it is easier to learn how to deal with these situations and "resistance" becomes much easier, and leads to a better quality of life.
Of course. But not everyone can do that right out of the blocks.Add to that the fact that "making the easy choice and only being concerned with about right now" is why a great many people are on MFP trying to lose a bunch of weight, and it's just plain silly to offer this short-sighted saying as a solution to the very problem it created.
If it works, it's not silly.
And you're still losing? Have you made it to goal weight successfully and maintained? Because you seem self-assured for someone who is still struggling with the journey.
Wow.
What is it with you? You're taking cheap, personal shots at people all over the boards, many of them working their butts off to succeed.
Are you trying to prove that getting to goal weight doesn't improve people's personalities?
If that's the case....mission accomplished.
Mr. Knight, thank you for standing up for others. [applause]0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »You can survive without eating carbs just like you can lose weight eating only Twinkies. Why does this matter? Neither is particularly healthy or something I'd advise. Most people will do much better eating, you know, vegetables, as well as many other foods with carbs in them.
As for the actual ratio, I think that depends on personal preference, specific health issues, goals, etc.spacequiztime wrote: »http://www.today.com/health/how-many-calories-pound-3-things-about-calories-you-may-t33986
I think this is the segment about calorie counting.
Yep - Today's segment in that series made me think of half of the forum "debates" I've seen on here. The nutritionist says as long as you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight but "not all calories are equal" and encouraged people to use most of their calories on more nutrient-dense foods even though you will still lose weight by just staying under that calorie goal. When Honest Matt asked if you can eat anything you want as long as it is within those calories, she responded with yes but do you want to just lose weight or do you want to lose weight and have energy...
I think that both the "eat in moderation" and "restrict certain foods" camps can agree on that.
I think about 90% of this site believes that. Than someone comes in and says something about a diet of all pizza or doughnuts and the floodgate opens.0 -
Changing a palate does take some time. It isn't just learning what other things you like. It's also getting used to different tastes.
When I cut the salt, everthing tasted horrid. I kept going back to the salt because I had so much trouble adjusting. It took a long time to find new ways to make food taste good, but it took even longer to appreciate them.
Same deal with sweets. Same deal with everything. You have to find something else you like and give it time.
Tastes can be changed, though.
You can eventually get yourself to where you like fruit as much as you used to like candy. If you want to do it and you put in some effort, it can happen.
I don't know why everyone assumes that people NEED to change their palates, though.
From my unscientific survey of MFP posters, it seems to me there are a variety of different kinds of fat people. Some (those I was most familiar with before coming here, and this is me too) are foodie types, who tend to love all kinds of food. Most of us would have said we loved fruit and well-cooked veggies and loads of savory foods, including those that weren't super oily and salty. Back when I drank wine I tended to prefer dry wine (although I worked to learn to appreciate the highly-rated sweeter stuff too, and did enjoy some of them) and bitter beers, as well as bitter greens, as well as (sure, why not?) plenty of desserts too. (But I'd usually have chosen a cheese plate over most desserts, and in that I never was that into "candy" a delicious apricot or plum or some berries over candy any day). I recall reading the introduction to Jeffrey Steingarden's The Man Who Ate Everything about how he thought a food critic should get over any food aversions and taking it to heart and really working to have an open mind to anything and trying to be willing to try anything when traveling (like mopane worm, which was not really a success, but not the worst thing ever). Of course like everyone I have my foods I hate (cold cereal, Wonder bread, ketchup, and canned tuna, for example), but for the most part I prided myself on being willing to try anything at a new restaurant and not being picky at all.
Others surprised me since I would have thought it was hard to gain weight being picky, but actually the super picky seem over-represented among those who need to lose weight too, and even those who seem not to like food that much or at least not to like many, many foods (like foods I grew up on and would have considered essential, such as vegetables) and, especially, to be really uncomfortable with trying new foods.
Maybe the palate thing is an issue for the latter group, but for the former I don't think it's really an issue. I've gone without added sugar for a month and it had no effect on my palate at all. I haven't found that eating predominantly nutrient-dense foods makes me unable to appreciate some ice cream or a homemade cherry pie and, frankly, thank goodness for that. I'd be sad if that happened.0 -
I didn't say anyone needed to. I said if you want to, it can be done.lemurcat12 wrote: »Changing a palate does take some time. It isn't just learning what other things you like. It's also getting used to different tastes.
When I cut the salt, everthing tasted horrid. I kept going back to the salt because I had so much trouble adjusting. It took a long time to find new ways to make food taste good, but it took even longer to appreciate them.
Same deal with sweets. Same deal with everything. You have to find something else you like and give it time.
Tastes can be changed, though.
You can eventually get yourself to where you like fruit as much as you used to like candy. If you want to do it and you put in some effort, it can happen.
I don't know why everyone assumes that people NEED to change their palates, though.
From my unscientific survey of MFP posters, it seems to me there are a variety of different kinds of fat people. Some (those I was most familiar with before coming here, and this is me too) are foodie types, who tend to love all kinds of food. Most of us would have said we loved fruit and well-cooked veggies and loads of savory foods, including those that weren't super oily and salty. Back when I drank wine I tended to prefer dry wine (although I worked to learn to appreciate the highly-rated sweeter stuff too, and did enjoy some of them) and bitter beers, as well as bitter greens, as well as (sure, why not?) plenty of desserts too. (But I'd usually have chosen a cheese plate over most desserts). I recall reading the introduction to Jeffrey Steingarden's The Man Who Ate Everything about how he thought a food critic should get over any food aversions and taking it to heart and really working to have an open mind to anything and trying to be willing to try anything when traveling (like mopane worm, which was not really a success, but not the worst thing ever). Of course like everyone I have my foods I hate (cold cereal, Wonder bread, ketchup, and canned tuna, for example), but for the most part I prided myself on being willing to try anything at a new restaurant and not being picky at all.
Others surprised me since I would have thought it was hard to gain weight being picky, but actually the super picky seem over-represented among those who need to lose weight too, and even those who seem not to like food that much or at least not to like many, many foods (like foods I grew up on and would have considered essential, such as vegetables) and, especially, to be really uncomfortable with trying new foods.
Maybe the palate thing is an issue for the latter group, but for the former I don't think it's really an issue. I've gone without added sugar for a month and it had no effect on my palate at all. I haven't found that eating predominantly nutrient-dense foods makes me unable to appreciate some ice cream or a homemade cherry pie and, frankly, thank goodness for that. I'd be sad if that happened.
I am not trying to get anyone to eat any specific way.
0 -
Why do you assume that people are unable to enjoy fruit or the like until they "change their palate"? The vast majority of people no doubt enjoy BOTH fruit and ice cream.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Changing a palate does take some time. It isn't just learning what other things you like. It's also getting used to different tastes.
When I cut the salt, everthing tasted horrid. I kept going back to the salt because I had so much trouble adjusting. It took a long time to find new ways to make food taste good, but it took even longer to appreciate them.
Same deal with sweets. Same deal with everything. You have to find something else you like and give it time.
Tastes can be changed, though.
You can eventually get yourself to where you like fruit as much as you used to like candy. If you want to do it and you put in some effort, it can happen.
I haven't found that eating predominantly nutrient-dense foods makes me unable to appreciate some ice cream or a homemade cherry pie and, frankly, thank goodness for that. I'd be sad if that happened.
I think it's usually the opposite. I think if someone regularly overeats sugary foods they often lose appreciation for them. It become more of a craving to satisfy than a true appreciation of the taste of the food. When they aren't eaten as often it's often easier to appreciate the taste.0 -
It still works... just don't eat the replacement foods. You aren't supposed to take away added sugar and replace it with sugar substitutes. You're supposed to replace it with water, unsweetened tea/ coffee, fruit, and veggies.
I don't add sugar to anything, or eat anything with added sugar, unless it's a special occasion (visiting parents/ friends, birthday celebrations, holidays). Even if I bake at home (rarely) I use honey, maple syrup, applesauce and dates for sweetness. Every once in a blue moon, I'll use coconut sugar. Sometimes, if I'm in a hurry, I eat a quest bar. Most days, I eat under 30-40 grams of sugar per day, none of it added. It's really not that hard.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Changing a palate does take some time. It isn't just learning what other things you like. It's also getting used to different tastes.
When I cut the salt, everthing tasted horrid. I kept going back to the salt because I had so much trouble adjusting. It took a long time to find new ways to make food taste good, but it took even longer to appreciate them.
Same deal with sweets. Same deal with everything. You have to find something else you like and give it time.
Tastes can be changed, though.
You can eventually get yourself to where you like fruit as much as you used to like candy. If you want to do it and you put in some effort, it can happen.
I haven't found that eating predominantly nutrient-dense foods makes me unable to appreciate some ice cream or a homemade cherry pie and, frankly, thank goodness for that. I'd be sad if that happened.
I think it's usually the opposite. I think if someone regularly overeats sugary foods they often lose appreciation for them. It become more of a craving to satisfy than a true appreciation of the taste of the food. When they aren't eaten as often it's often easier to appreciate the taste.
Yes, this is basically my experience.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