CI/CO vs Clean Eating
Options
Replies
-
TrailBlazinMN wrote: »It all depends on how good you want to feel. I've eaten super clean foods (by my definition) and I feel awesome. Endless energy, no caffeine needed, feeling amazing, etc. People don't realize how good they can feel when they get rid of the foods that affect their body, mind, and attitude.
If you want, just experiment. For dinner, have a few slices of pizza and a big bowl of ice cream for dinner and see how you feel in the morning. Wait a few days and have the same foods you ate during the day when you had pizza and ice cream but instead of pizza and ice cream, eat a massive salad with your choice of protein (lean meat, beans, quinoa, etc) along with some tea and see how you feel the following morning.
Some people can get away with the whole "everything in moderation" when it comes to "junk food". Other people can't. Just like a former alcoholic can't just have a sip or a former cocaine addict can't just have one line.
Pizza and ice cream is every Friday night (3 slices of a small, 1-2 servings of ice cream depending on what I have), and I feel no different on Saturday mornings than I do when I eat "clean".
Same here--I often have a serving of ice cream after dinner. I do not find that I feel worse the day after doing that or that my athletic performance declines (and I've had my best half marathon performances the day after letting myself eat whatever I wanted at an Indian restaurant, although I admit I'm not close to an elite runner). I really can't imagine why eating some pizza or some ice cream would have some kind of huge negative effect on how you feel.
Indeed, the last time I had pizza (last weekend after biking 35 miles, felt pretty good after and fine the next day) it was at an Italian restaurant and it seemed like the ingredients are pretty similar to those in the other options I could order--wheat, cheese, various veggies, tomatoes. Is one also supposed to feel horrible if one eats pasta?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
Hotly debated. AA claims 75% or so, for those who "work it," but that's a self selected group and isn't actually supported anyway. Other stats suggest single digit success rates.
There's the same problem with measuring success rates for dieters. So no one really knows, but on the whole probably not that good.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
Hotly debated. AA claims 75% or so, for those who "work it," but that's a self selected group and isn't actually supported anyway. Other stats suggest single digit success rates.
There's the same problem with measuring success rates for dieters. So no one really knows, but on the whole probably not that good.
yea I was hoping to find some stats on a .gov page somewhere
not necessarily super recent but at least something "official"0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
I'm sorry.
RIP, draznyth.
I've totally used that gif before. I just really like unicorns and sparkles though.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
Hotly debated. AA claims 75% or so, for those who "work it," but that's a self selected group and isn't actually supported anyway. Other stats suggest single digit success rates.
There's the same problem with measuring success rates for dieters. So no one really knows, but on the whole probably not that good.
yea I was hoping to find some stats on a .gov page somewhere
not necessarily super recent but at least something "official"
The National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions puts overall recovery rates for alcoholism at ~35%. That includes all methods, not just AA. 35% is a lot higher than dieting success. About half of recovers end up abstainers, the other half are moderators. However....the moderating half were on the lower end of the abuse scale to start with...
Something to think about, anyway...
0 -
PrizePopple wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
I'm sorry.
RIP, draznyth.
I've totally used that gif before. I just really like unicorns and sparkles though.
that movie lol
just barely below Pulp Fiction. which we all know is the best Tarantino flick
I've seen both over 9000 times0 -
Good to know you know exactly how everyone with a drug addiction feels toward food. Guess I'm in for a long night with the cookies since I had one for dessert already.kshama2001 wrote: »
Sugar = drug addiction comparison.kshama2001 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
You are comparing apples to oranges. This argument has been debated before in these types of threads and I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you.
You know full well eating too much food and substance abuse are two different things.
I went there because you said "everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything."
Also:
Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes.
Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and "sugar addiction" involve similar neural receptors, neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference, and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene.
[deleted snarky picture]
As someone who used to do many things to excess, I can tell you that the cravings felt exactly the same.
Thank God for yoga. Signing off to go practice.
0 -
PrizePopple wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
I'm sorry.
RIP, draznyth.
I've totally used that gif before. I just really like unicorns and sparkles though.
that movie lol
just barely below Pulp Fiction. which we all know is the best Tarantino flick
I've seen both over 9000 times
Yep.
I love Tarantino.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
Hotly debated. AA claims 75% or so, for those who "work it," but that's a self selected group and isn't actually supported anyway. Other stats suggest single digit success rates.
There's the same problem with measuring success rates for dieters. So no one really knows, but on the whole probably not that good.
yea I was hoping to find some stats on a .gov page somewhere
not necessarily super recent but at least something "official"
The National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions puts overall recovery rates for alcoholism at ~35%. That includes all methods, not just AA. 35% is a lot higher than dieting success. About half of recovers end up abstainers, the other half are moderators.
nice bro thanks for digging that up (can we get a source tho?)
so I'm guessing this also includes self-reported recovery (i.e. not mandated or tracked by one's GP)?0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I think it's a healthy approach...
There is no one "healthy" approach. If anything, it is unhealthy to be adamant that there is One True Way.
Some people do much better giving up completely, others do better restricting significantly (ie, occasional cheat), others can work it as moderation.
People need to figure out which works best for *them*. The "right" way is the way that works best for *them*.
I agree with this, and don't debate those who say that THEY do better by cutting stuff out or cutting way down on things (as I've said before there are plenty of foods I like but rarely eat, I just don't find framing when I do as a "cheat" or being off plan as helpful).
The only thing I argue with is the claim that eating "clean" is, well, the One True Way or that it's somehow less healthy to include a moderate amount of lower nutrient foods (whether that means some ice cream or some cheese or some white pasta or whatever people like to claim as "unclean") than to entirely banish everything you don't consider super nutritious from your diet.
IMO, the real difference between self-identified "clean" eaters and the rest of us here is that the "clean" eaters are suggesting that there's some negative effect on people in general (not just them, due to difficulty moderating or food sensitivities) from including in "unclean" foods in an overall calorie-appropriate, healthy and balanced diet that meets nutrient needs. I think that's silly and false and should be challenged.
I also do think that for many of us (not all) getting rid of weird emotional issues surrounding food and eating can be incredibly helpful and often that involves seeing foods as "bad," feeling guilt or shame when eating those foods, so on. So I do think it's often helpful to be more logical and rational in one's approach toward foods and not buy into weird ideas such as that there's some automatic weight gaining effect of eating a "bad carb" (which according to a recent thread includes all potatoes).0 -
Good to know you know exactly how everyone with a drug addiction feels toward food.kshama2001 wrote: »
Sugar = drug addiction comparison.kshama2001 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
You are comparing apples to oranges. This argument has been debated before in these types of threads and I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you.
You know full well eating too much food and substance abuse are two different things.
I went there because you said "everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything."
Also:
Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes.
Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and "sugar addiction" involve similar neural receptors, neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference, and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene.
[deleted snarky picture]
As someone who used to do many things to excess, I can tell you that the cravings felt exactly the same.
Thank God for yoga. Signing off to go practice.
The poster never said that.Guess I'm in for a long night with the cookies since I had one for dessert already.
Probably, yeah.0 -
Good to know you know exactly how everyone with a drug addiction feels toward food. Guess I'm in for a long night with the cookies since I had one for dessert already.kshama2001 wrote: »
Sugar = drug addiction comparison.kshama2001 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
You are comparing apples to oranges. This argument has been debated before in these types of threads and I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you.
You know full well eating too much food and substance abuse are two different things.
I went there because you said "everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything."
Also:
Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes.
Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and "sugar addiction" involve similar neural receptors, neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference, and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene.
[deleted snarky picture]
As someone who used to do many things to excess, I can tell you that the cravings felt exactly the same.
Thank God for yoga. Signing off to go practice.
Perhaps we need to stage an intervention. <nods>0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »TrailBlazinMN wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The answer is no, no they will not.
If someone eats healthily all day long, meets their macro- and micro-nutrient goals for the day, and lives an active and healthy lifestyle, a bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies at the end of the day is going to have zero effect on health or performance.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt -I think it's pretty awesome you know how food affects every single person in this world. By the way, not everyone can just have one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies. There is reason why some people need to eat "super clean", just like alcoholics can't have a sip and drug users can't just have one hit/line/etc.slideaway1 wrote: »On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
That's not what I said.
Also, if someone can't have just one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies, then their problem is with the ability to moderate their intake. That is something that they need to learn to do, and cutting those foods out completely forever is likely not going to teach them anything. Are we really expected to go the rest of our lives without eating another piece of birthday cake? Without eating out at a restaurant with friends or on a date? That's just not realistic.
I guarantee you that anyone (barring a medical reason that requires them to avoid any particular food/ingredient) who is healthy, active, and who eats mostly nutrient-dense foods is not going to have any negative effects from having something sweet or some "junk" food evrery now and then. You don't get extra credit for eating nothing but "clean" foods 100% of the time.
Why to the above bolded...
Why do you think that everyone has to learn to moderate a certain food if they are willing to give it up.
I have never and probably never will be able to moderate peanut butter M&Ms...I have given the up. I am okay with that. I still think about them sometimes but it has been over two years since I have eaten them.
I can live without them...I can not however learn to just eat 1 of those little guys.
Just my opinion. If I enjoy something that much, I'd like to be able to fit them in from time to time for my own mental health rather than give them up completely. I think it's a healthy approach, and it proves that a specific food does not control you. You have the power to eat the food, and you alone have the power to stop eating the food. I don't want to give that food the power.
Plus, moderation is a handy skill to have for every aspect in life. I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
The M&M didn't control me...I walked away from it.
Simply because someone chooses to give up a certain food doesn't mean that they don't have control of other aspects of their life. I control my spending...I can walk away from a sale rack. There are more than enough things in life to moderate besides one food.
Simply because you choose to moderate a food doesn't make you somehow better than someone who doesn't. It takes will power in either case. Besides...most of us on this site aren't experts at moderating...or we probably wouldn't be on this site counting every little morsel of food that enters our mouth.
I'm glad that you've found something that works for you, truly. I have already established in this thread that I have nothing against people who choose to cut out certain foods. My issue comes when people preach that everyone should give up certain foods to be somehow healthier, which you have not done.
Perhaps my wording was not the best choice (I'm half asleep today with a wine hangover), but I stand by the point that I was trying to make: the person in @TrailBlazinMN 's argument had an issue with moderation, and in that case, eating "clean" isn't necessarily going to be the answer. People can still enjoy the foods that they love within reason and still be healthy and lose weight. There are exceptions to this rule, such as people with BED, diabetes, insulin resistance, food allergies, etc. I am not referring to the exceptions to the rule - I am talking in very general terms.
And you're right, I had trouble moderating ALL foods before I found MFP. I was ecstatic when I learned that I don't have to give up foods like ice cream, or cookies, or Lucky Charms in order to lose weight. I've learned to moderate my intake and developed a healthier attitude towards food.
I've been trying to find where @trailblazinmn was preaching that clean eating was the only way or that he was better than anyone else eating a different way, was it deleted?
I did see where he commented what his methods were and suggested a personal experiment to see if it helped op feel any different, and then your subsequent defensive reaction assuming that he meant everyone had to eat "clean" to feel their best.
It amazes me how fast these threads that initially have great information or suggestions from all angles turn into a battle of which method is better. Then both views have to twist the other to extremes to fit their argument, when in fact they are basically saying the same thing.
Eat what you like to meet your goals. What you eat doesn't affect me and what I eat doesn't affect you. I'm not better than you for eating the way I do and you're not better than me for eating the way you do.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Good to know you know exactly how everyone with a drug addiction feels toward food. Guess I'm in for a long night with the cookies since I had one for dessert already.kshama2001 wrote: »
Sugar = drug addiction comparison.kshama2001 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
You are comparing apples to oranges. This argument has been debated before in these types of threads and I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you.
You know full well eating too much food and substance abuse are two different things.
I went there because you said "everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything."
Also:
Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes.
Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and "sugar addiction" involve similar neural receptors, neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference, and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene.
[deleted snarky picture]
As someone who used to do many things to excess, I can tell you that the cravings felt exactly the same.
Thank God for yoga. Signing off to go practice.
Perhaps we need to stage an intervention. <nods>
No use - she's probably already tripping balls.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »
Good to know you know exactly how everyone with a drug addiction feels toward food. Guess I'm in for a long night with the cookies since I had one for dessert already.kshama2001 wrote: »
Sugar = drug addiction comparison.kshama2001 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
You are comparing apples to oranges. This argument has been debated before in these types of threads and I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you.
You know full well eating too much food and substance abuse are two different things.
I went there because you said "everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything."
Also:
Sweet preference, sugar addiction and the familial history of alcohol dependence: shared neural pathways and genes.
Contemporary research has shown that a high number of alcohol-dependent and other drug-dependent individuals have a sweet preference, specifically for foods with a high sucrose concentration. Moreover, both human and animal studies have demonstrated that in some brains the consumption of sugar-rich foods or drinks primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens, in a manner similar to some drugs of abuse. The neurobiological pathways of drug and "sugar addiction" involve similar neural receptors, neurotransmitters, and hedonic regions in the brain. Craving, tolerance, withdrawal and sensitization have been documented in both human and animal studies. In addition, there appears to be cross sensitization between sugar addiction and narcotic dependence in some individuals. It has also been observed that the biological children of alcoholic parents, particularly alcoholic fathers, are at greater risk to have a strong sweet preference, and this may manifest in some with an eating disorder. In the last two decades research has noted that specific genes may underlie the sweet preference in alcohol- and drug-dependent individuals, as well as in biological children of paternal alcoholics. There also appears to be some common genetic markers between alcohol dependence, bulimia, and obesity, such as the A1 allele gene and the dopamine 2 receptor gene.
[deleted snarky picture]
As someone who used to do many things to excess, I can tell you that the cravings felt exactly the same.
Thank God for yoga. Signing off to go practice.
Perhaps we need to stage an intervention. <nods>
No use - she's probably already tripping balls.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »I think that from now on every time someone suggests peanut butter, I'm going to ask, "What about the allergic people? Won't it kill them?" Because, apparently, it's vitally important on this site to really hammer home the edge cases, in case people didn't know that a daily diet of 1300 calories of cake might be suboptimal or that people with eating disorders don't deal with food the same way others do or that IIFYM with protein == 0 might not work well.
How people consistently, and I mean in every thread in which the topic arises, can bolt at light speed from "What if I have some ice cream" to "You can't eat just ice cream" and think it is insightful, helpful, or even relevant, I have no idea.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
Would you say this to alcoholics or people in 12 step programs for drugs or gambling?
what are the stats on the success rates of those programs?
I googled around for a bit but didn't find anything easily
if anyone has access to that info I'd be interested to know though
Hotly debated. AA claims 75% or so, for those who "work it," but that's a self selected group and isn't actually supported anyway. Other stats suggest single digit success rates.
There's the same problem with measuring success rates for dieters. So no one really knows, but on the whole probably not that good.
yea I was hoping to find some stats on a .gov page somewhere
not necessarily super recent but at least something "official"
The National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions puts overall recovery rates for alcoholism at ~35%. That includes all methods, not just AA. 35% is a lot higher than dieting success. About half of recovers end up abstainers, the other half are moderators.
nice bro thanks for digging that up (can we get a source tho?)
so I'm guessing this also includes self-reported recovery (i.e. not mandated or tracked by one's GP)?
I'd be interested in the source too.
I'm skeptical of any stats on it (and on weight loss success, for that matter), since I'm not sure how they could possibly collect them in a reliable way.0 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »TrailBlazinMN wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »The answer is no, no they will not.
If someone eats healthily all day long, meets their macro- and micro-nutrient goals for the day, and lives an active and healthy lifestyle, a bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies at the end of the day is going to have zero effect on health or performance.
@Alyssa_Is_LosingIt -I think it's pretty awesome you know how food affects every single person in this world. By the way, not everyone can just have one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies. There is reason why some people need to eat "super clean", just like alcoholics can't have a sip and drug users can't just have one hit/line/etc.slideaway1 wrote: »On a personal level I agree with this. I physically feel different (usually the day after) between getting my Carb Source from something like a sweet potato (Complex Carb) and veg, to eating Pizza the night before. Some people might not be as sensitive to this though.
This. I agree that some people might not be as sensitive to this but I think those people are far and few. On the other hand, I have realized the higher quality of food someone eats, the more their body rejects lower quality foods. It's like their body doesn't want to tolerate lower quality foods and only wants the good stuff.
That's not what I said.
Also, if someone can't have just one bowl of ice cream or a couple of cookies, then their problem is with the ability to moderate their intake. That is something that they need to learn to do, and cutting those foods out completely forever is likely not going to teach them anything. Are we really expected to go the rest of our lives without eating another piece of birthday cake? Without eating out at a restaurant with friends or on a date? That's just not realistic.
I guarantee you that anyone (barring a medical reason that requires them to avoid any particular food/ingredient) who is healthy, active, and who eats mostly nutrient-dense foods is not going to have any negative effects from having something sweet or some "junk" food evrery now and then. You don't get extra credit for eating nothing but "clean" foods 100% of the time.
Why to the above bolded...
Why do you think that everyone has to learn to moderate a certain food if they are willing to give it up.
I have never and probably never will be able to moderate peanut butter M&Ms...I have given the up. I am okay with that. I still think about them sometimes but it has been over two years since I have eaten them.
I can live without them...I can not however learn to just eat 1 of those little guys.
Just my opinion. If I enjoy something that much, I'd like to be able to fit them in from time to time for my own mental health rather than give them up completely. I think it's a healthy approach, and it proves that a specific food does not control you. You have the power to eat the food, and you alone have the power to stop eating the food. I don't want to give that food the power.
Plus, moderation is a handy skill to have for every aspect in life. I don't see why it would be controversial to suggest that everyone should learn moderation. Not only with food, but with everything.
The M&M didn't control me...I walked away from it.
Simply because someone chooses to give up a certain food doesn't mean that they don't have control of other aspects of their life. I control my spending...I can walk away from a sale rack. There are more than enough things in life to moderate besides one food.
Simply because you choose to moderate a food doesn't make you somehow better than someone who doesn't. It takes will power in either case. Besides...most of us on this site aren't experts at moderating...or we probably wouldn't be on this site counting every little morsel of food that enters our mouth.
I'm glad that you've found something that works for you, truly. I have already established in this thread that I have nothing against people who choose to cut out certain foods. My issue comes when people preach that everyone should give up certain foods to be somehow healthier, which you have not done.
Perhaps my wording was not the best choice (I'm half asleep today with a wine hangover), but I stand by the point that I was trying to make: the person in @TrailBlazinMN 's argument had an issue with moderation, and in that case, eating "clean" isn't necessarily going to be the answer. People can still enjoy the foods that they love within reason and still be healthy and lose weight. There are exceptions to this rule, such as people with BED, diabetes, insulin resistance, food allergies, etc. I am not referring to the exceptions to the rule - I am talking in very general terms.
And you're right, I had trouble moderating ALL foods before I found MFP. I was ecstatic when I learned that I don't have to give up foods like ice cream, or cookies, or Lucky Charms in order to lose weight. I've learned to moderate my intake and developed a healthier attitude towards food.
I've been trying to find where @trailblazinmn was preaching that clean eating was the only way or that he was better than anyone else eating a different way, was it deleted?
I did see where he commented what his methods were and suggested a personal experiment to see if it helped op feel any different, and then your subsequent defensive reaction assuming that he meant everyone had to eat "clean" to feel their best.
It amazes me how fast these threads that initially have great information or suggestions from all angles turn into a battle of which method is better. Then both views have to twist the other to extremes to fit their argument, when in fact they are basically saying the same thing.
Eat what you like to meet your goals. What you eat doesn't affect me and what I eat doesn't affect you. I'm not better than you for eating the way I do and you're not better than me for eating the way you do.
He started by saying this (bolded emphasis is my own):It all depends on how good you want to feel. I've eaten super clean foods (by my definition) and I feel awesome. Endless energy, no caffeine needed, feeling amazing, etc. People don't realize how good they can feel when they get rid of the foods that affect their body, mind, and attitude.
He implied that people who don't eat clean don't want to feel good. What I was trying to get him to understand is that people who include foods that are not "clean" in moderation are not going to feel any worse than someone who eats 100% "clean".
If eating that way 100% of the time makes him feel better, that's great. It's not going to make everyone feel better, and he certainly shouldn't have implied that people who enjoy treats every now and then are going to have less energy or just feel less "amazing" than he does. I'd also bet that he doesn't eat 100% clean all the time - he likely does indulge from time to time, so perhaps he doesn't realize that he is actually in agreement with me.
0 -
Dieting thoughts seem to be more like religion than science so the main thing is to do what works for ourselves and let others do the same.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Dieting thoughts seem to be more like religion than science...
No they aren't. I've never seen god, but I have seen the science behind CICO.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions