Cutting carbs and refined sugar
Replies
-
I don't know. That's why I asked the person who came up with the theory.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
Saying that people demonize something isn't 'demonizing' those people. (see the definition of demonizing above, as giving it power over you, or being afraid of it because you don't understand it). Neither of those definitions fits people who say that people demonize food, now does it?
Is there a standard definition of what is and isn't demonization of food?
0 -
I don't know. That's why I asked the person who came up with the theory.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
Saying that people demonize something isn't 'demonizing' those people. (see the definition of demonizing above, as giving it power over you, or being afraid of it because you don't understand it). Neither of those definitions fits people who say that people demonize food, now does it?
Is there a standard definition of what is and isn't demonization of food?
Personally, I think any time a person views a food (any food) as being 'bad', or 'addictive' or anything other than a source or calories or nourishment or maybe a brief moment of flavor enjoyment, that gives that food power over the person. This is what 'demonizes' food. Food is just food. It's inanimate and sits on the table until a person does something with it (eats it).0 -
But who demonized sugar in this thread? It started off as a discussion about cutting sugar and reducing carbs, and asking for tips on how to do that. I know many get their hackles up when food is called junk, but if it is a problem food for someone they may well consider it to be junk... for them. I consider some food to be junk, and other food to be of high quality. It's an opinion.
I also know that many around here dislike the word addiction in relation to sugar but some people feel they are experiencing something akin to what they imagine an addiction to be or be similar to. I use the word because what I experience is more than a craving, it's a physical compulsion. Will sugar issues one day be considered to be an addiction? Who knows, but I think the choice of words used conveys that that particular person has a problem with sugar/carbs, and it's not just a mental thing. It's descriptive. Most of you will not experience that and that is great, but understand that when someone mentions the word addiction with sugar, it is more than just a hankering for some ice cream. People aren't lying, why would they?
Eating low carb is a safe thing to do, and can be a healthy thing to do for about a third of North Americans. We don't need carbs. Our body needs glucose but we don't need carbs to deliver that glucose because the body can make it from protein. And yes, the rawer and fresher the meat, the higher in carbs it is so the Inuit did get some carbs, but it was still a low carb diet. Look at the Masai, another healthy low carb culture. Look at the people around here who eat low carb; those who stuck with it report (usually) feeling better - I sure do. It's just a way of eating that works very well for some people.
Yes, low carb people will suggest trying low carb when someone wants to limit sugars, but that is because we believe in it. It's the same with people who suggest moderation - it works for them, they believe in it. We should respect both ways of eating because they both work for different people.
Restricting some foods isn't bad and is often successful. I've been gluten free for a few years; I feel better and have never cheated or binged on it in my life. My son eats no nuts without any desire to binge. My SIL is GF and dairy free with improved health. My husband wouldn't eat a green leafy vegetable or broccoli unless forced to; he's not low carb but I eat a lot more greens than he does; he out eats me in bananas. My low carb diet isn't bad because I didn't eat the potato at dinner.
Low carb is just a way of eating that works well for some people.0 -
I don't see anything wrong with eating low carb, if that's what someone wants to do and that works for them. I was simply answering a question about what demonizing food is.
There are many ways for people to eat in a calorie deficit, low carb is just one of them.0 -
OK, so I believe that some foods are bad for me. This inanimate object now has power over me, according to you.
I don't know. That's why I asked the person who came up with the theory.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
Saying that people demonize something isn't 'demonizing' those people. (see the definition of demonizing above, as giving it power over you, or being afraid of it because you don't understand it). Neither of those definitions fits people who say that people demonize food, now does it?
Is there a standard definition of what is and isn't demonization of food?
Personally, I think any time a person views a food (any food) as being 'bad', or 'addictive' or anything other than a source or calories or nourishment or maybe a brief moment of flavor enjoyment, that gives that food power over the person. This is what 'demonizes' food. Food is just food. It's inanimate and sits on the table until a person does something with it (eats it).
What power(s) do the foods now hold?
0 -
OK, so I believe that some foods are bad for me. This inanimate object now has power over me, according to you.
I don't know. That's why I asked the person who came up with the theory.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
Saying that people demonize something isn't 'demonizing' those people. (see the definition of demonizing above, as giving it power over you, or being afraid of it because you don't understand it). Neither of those definitions fits people who say that people demonize food, now does it?
Is there a standard definition of what is and isn't demonization of food?
Personally, I think any time a person views a food (any food) as being 'bad', or 'addictive' or anything other than a source or calories or nourishment or maybe a brief moment of flavor enjoyment, that gives that food power over the person. This is what 'demonizes' food. Food is just food. It's inanimate and sits on the table until a person does something with it (eats it).
What power(s) do the foods now hold?
You misunderstand. You only think the food has power over you. You're imagining the demon; you're imagining the power. The food is just food.
0 -
Stop listening to what the media tells you. You can't keep up a low carb lifestyle. How do you power through your workouts?0
-
OK, so I believe that some foods are bad for me. This inanimate object now has power over me, according to you.
I don't know. That's why I asked the person who came up with the theory.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
Saying that people demonize something isn't 'demonizing' those people. (see the definition of demonizing above, as giving it power over you, or being afraid of it because you don't understand it). Neither of those definitions fits people who say that people demonize food, now does it?
Is there a standard definition of what is and isn't demonization of food?
Personally, I think any time a person views a food (any food) as being 'bad', or 'addictive' or anything other than a source or calories or nourishment or maybe a brief moment of flavor enjoyment, that gives that food power over the person. This is what 'demonizes' food. Food is just food. It's inanimate and sits on the table until a person does something with it (eats it).
What power(s) do the foods now hold?
You misunderstand. You only think the food has power over you. You're imagining the demon; you're imagining the power. The food is just food.
No-no-no. I don't think the food has power over me. At all. IMO, as far as I've ever been able to tell, the food around here...and the food at the grocery store...doesn't seem to be wielding any power whatsoever. It seems to be just food.
Others are suggesting that if you say (or admit) that some food is bad for you, the statement somehow imbues the food with power.Personally, I think any time a person views a food (any food) as being 'bad', or 'addictive' or anything other than a source or calories or nourishment or maybe a brief moment of flavor enjoyment, that gives that food power over the person. This is what 'demonizes' food. Food is just food. It's inanimate and sits on the table until a person does something with it (eats it).Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
I'm wondering what kind of "power" others think the food has.
I've heard this said many, many times and I've never understood what these people are talking about, with the food being given power by people who say it's bad. I'd like to finally know what the heck they're talking about.0 -
Some foods are more healthy than others. As a person seeking peak fitness and optimal health, I avoid certain foods as well as certain people, places and activities.OK, so I believe that some foods are bad for me. This inanimate object now has power over me, according to you.
What power(s) do the foods now hold?
You misunderstand. You only think the food has power over you. You're imagining the demon; you're imagining the power. The food is just food.
It's not imaging demons to acknowledge reality.
Further, when I eat processed foods, it triggers something, and I begin craving more junk foods.
I just won't indulge in moderation, so I need to save such treats for a cheat day and just enjoy those tasty, empty calories.
YUMMY!
In my normal diet I stick to whole foods like lean meats, eggs, fresh fruits and veggies, 100% whole grained, home baked breads, beans, nuts, raw unpasteurized dairy and quality fish, and this is no vice.
Everybody knows the better we eat, the more health and wellness we enjoy.
0 -
-
OK, so I believe that some foods are bad for me. This inanimate object now has power over me, according to you.
I don't know. That's why I asked the person who came up with the theory.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
Saying that people demonize something isn't 'demonizing' those people. (see the definition of demonizing above, as giving it power over you, or being afraid of it because you don't understand it). Neither of those definitions fits people who say that people demonize food, now does it?
Is there a standard definition of what is and isn't demonization of food?
Personally, I think any time a person views a food (any food) as being 'bad', or 'addictive' or anything other than a source or calories or nourishment or maybe a brief moment of flavor enjoyment, that gives that food power over the person. This is what 'demonizes' food. Food is just food. It's inanimate and sits on the table until a person does something with it (eats it).
What power(s) do the foods now hold?
You misunderstand. You only think the food has power over you. You're imagining the demon; you're imagining the power. The food is just food.
No-no-no. I don't think the food has power over me. At all. IMO, as far as I've ever been able to tell, the food around here...and the food at the grocery store...doesn't seem to be wielding any power whatsoever. It seems to be just food.
Others are suggesting that if you say (or admit) that some food is bad for you, the statement somehow imbues the food with power.Personally, I think any time a person views a food (any food) as being 'bad', or 'addictive' or anything other than a source or calories or nourishment or maybe a brief moment of flavor enjoyment, that gives that food power over the person. This is what 'demonizes' food. Food is just food. It's inanimate and sits on the table until a person does something with it (eats it).Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
I'm wondering what kind of "power" others think the food has.
I've heard this said many, many times and I've never understood what these people are talking about, with the food being given power by people who say it's bad. I'd like to finally know what the heck they're talking about.
It is quite common for people to claim that if they eat a particular food they are unable to stop eating it. I understand that feeling, it's related to habits and certain emotional ways of using foods (and also could be related to a bingeing problem), but claiming that you are simply unable to stop eating a particular food if you start--and sometimes people claim that's the case even if the food is just around--is a good way to make it true. It also, yes, gives the food power over you.
Another thing that I think constitutes giving food power over you is telling yourself--as a way to try to stop overeating, usually, but sometimes it's simply the result of cultural messages or the diet industry--that eating a particular food is disgusting or that only disgusting people (or fat people or gluttons) eat that food. (This is one reason I hate the "clean eating" terminology so much, which I think plays into this disordered way of thinking.) Then, when people invariably do eat the food, they don't just feel "eh, I made a less than perfect choice, I'll eat a bit less the rest of the day and try hard to choose more nutritious foods." They think "I am disgusting, I'm a loser, I ruined everything." And then often they figure it's a wasted day and eat more, especially since eating is commonly something they are used to using as self comfort.
It's nice for you if you don't have these damaging reactions and feelings about food. Based on what I've seen with friends and relatives who have struggled with them I am fortunate to have avoided the worst of it, although I do still understand this way of thinking and cultural attitudes enough that I think it's an important thing to fight against, even in the milder forms like the way lots of women will feel compelled to kind of apologize for buying high cal food to the person behind them in line "I know I shouldn't, but I'm being naughty today!" I think it's much easier if we try to have logical, reason-based attitudes toward food.
And, for me, having a logical, reason-based attitude does not include lying to yourself and saying that it makes no difference if you eat vegetables or not, but also does not include lying to yourself and saying that eating even one bite of ice cream will have a negative effect on your health (unless you actually have a health issue where that's so, like a celiac with gluten). I think blowing up the consequences of eating foods to act as a deterrent to eating them is not a healthy attitude, or--my main point--a logical or reason-based one.
On the other hand, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "I have chosen not to eat food X for my personal reasons," whatever they may be. There are lots of foods I don't eat and ways I have chosen to eat that I don't expect others to follow or claim are necessary for health, they just help me. But I avoid telling myself that something I don't eat--fast food, for example--largely because I don't even like it is also something that will spoil my day if I ever have any or that others who incorporate it in moderate amounts can't be healthy. What matters for health is overall diet.0 -
Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Some foods are more healthy than others.OK, so I believe that some foods are bad for me. This inanimate object now has power over me, according to you.
What power(s) do the foods now hold?
You misunderstand. You only think the food has power over you. You're imagining the demon; you're imagining the power. The food is just food.
Some foods have more nutrients than others.
Whether something is more or less healthy as an addition to my diet depends on what else I've eaten.
On the whole vegetables are among the "healthiest" (as in nutrient dense) foods to eat, but if someone is really low on fat or protein, broccoli would probably not be the best choice. As demonstrated by the (ridiculous) question in another thread currently about what the most healthy one food is, really no foods would be a good choice as a single source of calories, and something like milk or eggs would probably win out over greens, even though people can easily live without eating milk or eggs, and I'd recommend that everyone eat greens (if not allergic). Indeed, although it was pointed out in that thread that kale has a nice mix of nutrients, kale would be a poor choice, as it would be almost impossible to get enough calories to live on from just kale. So if someone were fueling a bike ride, kale is similarly a bad choice.It's not imaging demons to acknowledge reality.
I think logically understanding what's in a food and how it may detract from or further your goals is a logical way to think of food. Deciding whether you want to eat it or not based on that, not demonization. When someone exaggerates the truth or makes stuff up -- healthy people can't eat cookies, ever, to do so ruins your health! -- you are not thinking of the food logically any more. My impression is that people often do this (if they aren't just misinformed), because they think they need to to convince themselves not to overeat it. I think better to just make decisions based on the options and the true information. You can eat bread and be healthy. You don't have to eat bread if you don't want to, of course.Further, when I eat processed foods, it triggers something, and I begin craving more junk foods.
Eh, the last "processed food" I ate was some feta cheese this morning. "Processed food" is such a huge and diverse category I never understand why people generalize about it.
And as I understand the definition of "junk food" (low nutrients, calorie dense), not all junk food is highly processed storebought stuff. It could be homemade.I just won't indulge in moderation, so I need to save such treats for a cheat day and just enjoy those tasty, empty calories.
Makes total sense to know yourself and what you prefer. I am not good with exercising moderation with Indian food (not because it has control over me, of course, but because I enjoy being able to eat naan and a couple of different curries), so I prefer to eat it less often (and usually the night before or after a big workout) and not worry about cutting calories. With sweets I'm really not interested in consuming a lot at once, so I like including a little chocolate or a half cup of ice cream/gelato more often, or the much more occasional homemade baked good (in a reasonable serving size).0 -
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
0 -
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
0 -
I eat about 140 carbs a day. I eat mainly fruits veggies and lean protein. I have more energy than I ever have. I make sure to eat something small every 3 hours which keeps me feeling full and the fruits curb my sweet tooth. They are my feel good foods. I also drink half my body weight in ounces of water. Flushes you out. Good luck
0 -
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.0 -
So, according to you, if the science supports the fact that the food is bad for you, saying that the food is bad for you is not demonization? You are in agreement that some foods are bad for you?
Demonization of food is give it negative attributes it doesn't have according to established science.
Solipsistic arguments not withstanding, I'm pretty sure people are real and have no supernatural power over me, so not seeing the demonization.Demons are the blind fears of primitive thinking, the boogie-men of children. It becomes pretty clear that to demonize something is to give it a power over you, to tacitly give it the power to make you afraid because you don't understand it.
Why would you want to give a food that power? Why would anyone want to live in fear of a food for the sake of fearing it? I would like to live in the modern world free of demons - a world where such things are gone because we have rational enlightenment and understanding.
When you demonize people who demonize food, does that give them power over you? Or does this "Relinquishment Of Power" theory only hold true for foods?
That said, tree frog poison can be a very powerful hallucinogen in shamanistic rituals, so you might be one step closer than most.
OK, so I got one definition of demonization. Could you give me your definition of "demonization" as it applies to food?
Also, what power do you think the food is imbued with upon it's demonization?
Particular powers are placebo and nocebo effect, plus by trying to restrict it without need, you're setting up the food as novel when consumed, and thus increasing the desire of the food.
It is generally pretty old and established that intermittent reinforcement is actually more effective than continuous reinforcement. More modern techniques studying dopamine in the brain show that novelty plays a part in dopamine responses, and thus increases the perceived reward of it - essentially a chemical version of the conditioning principle of intermittent reinforcement.
Also, to be clear, when one demonizes the food, the food is given the power of being able to force the demonizer to desire it. Is that what you're saying?
Blah, blah, blah, this Psych study this, that Psych study that. I'm not getting into a battle over reinforcement, procrastination, delayed gratification, etc. I just want to be clear on what powers you believe the food has been given.
0 -
Mandyrose1983 wrote: ». I also know what addiction feels like and yes, the way my heart races and my breath gets shallow and I am suddenly bursting with energy is tantamount to cocaine. .
Just wanted to comment on what you said above, about heart racing and breath gets shallow. Have you had bloodwork done recently and gotten an overall check up by the doctor? When you eat sugar, your blood sugar (glucose) could be spiking so high that you get the feelings. What particular type of food are you eating when you get that feeling? Have you been checked for diabetes or could be on a path to becoming diabetic?
I had a recent scare after taking some high blood pressure medication that caused me to sweat, get headaches and heart racing feeling -- it was causing my blood sugar to spike to diabetic-like levels. After that scare, I'm cutting back on the refined carbs and doing better watching what I eat. Snack suggestions are Kind bars, some Kashi chewy granola bars. All balance the fat/protein/carbs well for better digestion and not getting those spikes.
My diary is open if you want to get some food eating suggestions. I am like you -- addictive personality. Compared to the days of 300 g carbs/day now I'm down to 150 or so and feeling lots better and still have all the energy I could want. How the weight loss will pan out is another thing -- but it takes time. Creating a healthy lifestyle without fully giving up the things I may crave is important, and not to over-indulge.0 -
Blah, blah, blah, this Psych study this, that Psych study that. I'm not getting into a battle over reinforcement, procrastination, delayed gratification, etc. I just want to be clear on what powers you believe the food has been given.
lol I tend to agree with the bla bla bla bit. All of the predicted dire consequences of eliminating foods and assigning a good/bad value to them haven't panned out in my case. It's been a wholly positive experience for me and better health is the result.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions