Cutting carbs and refined sugar
Replies
-
kommodevaran wrote: »When I leave hyperpalatable foods that I have difficulties moderating, in the store, who has the power?
You do!
With...
0 -
I read it and don't disagree with most of it. I'm not sure there is a clear definition of what constitutes "demonization" (on the part of the demonizer) in there, though. Can you sum it up? (I don't mean that in a nasty way. I read it all. I don't mind longer posts and make them myself! I just mean a brief definition of what you think "demonization" means, if you believe that food is, in fact, demonized and is imbued with power(s) by the demonizing.)lemurcat12 wrote: »
I've seen that. It's funny.MakePeasNotWar wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.
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.
I know I'm not the one you're asking, but apparently sugar free gummi bears have some pretty demonic powers.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/B008JELLCA
I've been reading forever about "demonization" and how it imbues food with power. I've wondered about what the heck these people mean when they say these things and have decided to find out what they mean by asking when it comes up.
Can't know until you ask!
I answered.
Hmm. "Demonizing" = "sugar is the devil." (Which is something I've seen around here multiple times.) Human beings cannot handle 50% carb diets, and so carbs are the reason we are fat. "FAT makes you FAT!" "I got fat because if I eat processed foods I cannot stop, as they were designed by corporate America to be impossible to resist." "I did not get fat from overeating, but because I ate small amounts of 'insert allegedly 'bad' food here' which causes my body to gain weight even on 1200 calories." Food X is "disgusting, terrible, and if you eat it you cannot be healthy." "Sugar is just like heroin!" "Only pigs eat fast food"--although this is more about demonizing people, of course. Anyway, stuff like that.
I should clarify, though, that what I described before is how people give food power over them. I think "demonization" (as defined in this post) is somewhat separate. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they do not. My problem with demonization is that it's dishonest and not a logical way to think, not that it conveys power (it might or might not depending on the specifics--again, that's addressed in the prior post).0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The Eskimo (Inuit) population dispelled that myth a long, long time ago.stevencloser wrote: »There are no essential carbohydrates because your body is so dependent on them you would die if they were and you went without them for a short time.
Read my post again.
Your body needs glucose. You just don't need to eat them, because your body can make it itself out of other food sources and your body stores.
Essential in dietary terms means that your body can't make it out of other things, it needs to be eaten to be present in your body.
There's a few bodily functions (very important ones, brain stuff mostly) that rely solely on glucose, no substitutes accepted.
So here's what would happen if carbs WERE essential and you wouldn't eat them(to the extend of my knowledge, feel free to correct me):
Your blood glucose would drop, your body uses its glycogen stores to bring it back up again, that goes well for a few days until the glycogen stores are depleted (since you're not eating carbs to replenish them and your body can't make more), your blood glucose would drop again, you'd enter hypoglycemia, then die.
We'd probably be extinct if carbs were essential.
You can go a pretty long time eating no fats or proteins without dying because your body has long term stores for them in form of your fat tissue and lean body mass respectively. There's not much stores for glucose though, only the glycogen storage in your muscles and liver, and that runs out fast when there's nothing to replenish it.
Why are you saying this?
Every body can make the glucose it needs if carbohydrate is not eaten.0 -
Yes or no:
As for the science, if science says food has or can have an outcome, sure, I accept that. Bad is a morality term, and barring some people I vehemently disagree with, generally science isn't in the field of determining morals. What I tend to see is the consquences of stress from creating rules for oneself about food are more likely to hurt a person than most of the food they eat in moderation. For an example, a celiac avoiding gluten isn't demonizing food, but someone on a low carb for no reason or believes they have self diagnosed gluten sensitivity avoid it is demonizing it.
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.
If you care not one wit what the mechanism is, I'll restate it in dramatic fashion: if you make food something you can't have, you actually make avoiding over consuming it harder. You make it more crave-able because it now isn't just a food you enjoy, it is a food you enjoy, and it is something you're being told (even by yourself) that you can't have. Now you're suddenly thinking "how will I live my life without ever consuming white bread ever again?", and then you're on the floor covered in baguette crumbs. Instead, you could have just had a slice, logged it, kept your macros, and not burnt up willpower fighting the thing mentally.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
I get what powers you believe the food has when it's demonized. You believe it can then force people to eat it. Thank you for answering that. I'm just not clear on what you do and don't believe is "demonizing" the food.
I'm not arguing and am not planning to argue with your ideas. They're your ideas and you're entitled to them. I'm just trying to understand them.0 -
Mandyrose1983 wrote: »Mandyrose1983 wrote: »I mean that some people say that that have a bite of ice cream and it satisfies them. For me, as soon as I taste a little bit of ice cream, candy or sugar, I feel like it's a drug and I just want MORE. I truly believe sugar is as addictive as cocaine
I don't know about everyone, but as someone who's been an addict with pretty much every narcotic there is at some point (I know, I know...lame...that's well behind me and it's going to stay there), I feel the same way about refined sugar. Once I start eating *kitten* sugars like cake or candy, it escalates quickly. I get ravenous for it. When I finally make the choice to stop, it sucks. I feel different in a bad way, and I crave it for a good while. But once it's been out of my system I'm okay. I think a lot of people experience this! Or at least some of the people I've talked to about how much I have to stay away from it... Everyone's different, obviously. But I can totally relate to your "dramatic" feelings about it hahaha internet forums are so ridiculous sometimes.
Yeah, I have had to keep my fingers silent on many of these comments. I so appreciate the support and even the constructive criticism. I guess I can't get mad at people who don't know me but presume that I am being dramatic or that I haven't tried everything that I can think of before coming to the conclusion that I might have to cut carbs and see what happens. 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. Oh well. I guess I really can't expect everyone to empathize with my journey. Just glad I can find some like minded and supportive people on this site.
Anyone who's actually been addicted to a narcotic substance or alcohol should actually be insulted by the insinuation that food is addictive. It's not. 'Shit sugars'? Come on. Your body does not know the difference between sugar from sugar cane or sugar beets or corn or any other source, or a piece of fruit. Neither does your brain. Does this reaction happen when you eat a potato? That's a carb also. How about a piece of whole-wheat bread with nothing on it?
Are you lining up sugar out of the bag and licking it off of the counter? Eating spoonsful of it? Because that's addictive behavior. If you're just worried about eating an extra donut because you really enjoy the taste - guess what - that's not sugar addiction. That's you enjoying the flavor combination of carbs and fats. That's what happens with a lot of the foods usually mentioned, like pizza, cookies, that piece of bread with butter and peanut butter on it.
Sometimes if you realize you really like the taste of something, and indulgence is the only way eating it will make you feel satisfied, you have to learn to make room for it in a calorie deficit. That's possible. You undercut your calories several days in a row, so that you have a large chunk of calories available on the day you want to indulge. Then you eat that indulgent food.
If eating a lot of it isn't the answer (in the long run, for most people, a small serving is better and will make you happier), you learn to weigh your food and have a small serving and just enjoy that. You train your brain that the food is not your master and don't react the way that you have in the past.
I've had a verified physical addiction. To me, carbohydrates provoke a similar response - especially simple ones - with some very damaging health consequences. Some people can use a substance without addiction and others can't. I'm glad that you can just not overindulge, but please do not presume that your situation applies to every other person.
I've known a bunch of addicts and never seen a licking off the counter behaviour, did you make that up? I'm guite sure I haven't ever read that behaviour as a requirement to prove or disprove addiction.
0 -
Yes or no:
As for the science, if science says food has or can have an outcome, sure, I accept that. Bad is a morality term, and barring some people I vehemently disagree with, generally science isn't in the field of determining morals. What I tend to see is the consquences of stress from creating rules for oneself about food are more likely to hurt a person than most of the food they eat in moderation. For an example, a celiac avoiding gluten isn't demonizing food, but someone on a low carb for no reason or believes they have self diagnosed gluten sensitivity avoid it is demonizing it.
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.
If you care not one wit what the mechanism is, I'll restate it in dramatic fashion: if you make food something you can't have, you actually make avoiding over consuming it harder. You make it more crave-able because it now isn't just a food you enjoy, it is a food you enjoy, and it is something you're being told (even by yourself) that you can't have. Now you're suddenly thinking "how will I live my life without ever consuming white bread ever again?", and then you're on the floor covered in baguette crumbs. Instead, you could have just had a slice, logged it, kept your macros, and not burnt up willpower fighting the thing mentally.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
I get what powers you believe the food has when it's demonized. You believe it can then force people to eat it. Thank you for answering that. I'm just not clear on what you do and don't believe is "demonizing" the food.
I'm not arguing and am not planning to argue with your ideas. They're your ideas and you're entitled to them. I'm just trying to understand them.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
Indeterminate. I can't say any single food is harmful absent knowledge of the person consuming it, and the diet they're consuming it in. If you want to force a dichotomy, the only possible answer I can give is all food is harmful - "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison" Paracelsus .
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
Look at my answer about someone with celiac's disease. I said if a celiac avoided bread because of gluten, that isn't demonizing.
As for your last statement - no, one of the horrible things is the belief that we're entitled to our opinion and somehow that prevents them from subject to criticism. If you have criticism of my idea, please go ahead.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.
Me too!
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.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
0 -
It works for millions, as does other tools like moderation.
Both are sustainable and both are challenging and unsustainable (different horses for different courses).
OP - try it, low carb diets can be extremely healthy. The only thing that will happen is it will work, or it won't work.
The main thing to realise is, its not a magic pill! Its a tool to help you eat in a calorie deficit, which is the only way you will lose weight.
Good luck.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I read it and don't disagree with most of it. I'm not sure there is a clear definition of what constitutes "demonization" (on the part of the demonizer) in there, though. Can you sum it up? (I don't mean that in a nasty way. I read it all. I don't mind longer posts and make them myself! I just mean a brief definition of what you think "demonization" means, if you believe that food is, in fact, demonized and is imbued with power(s) by the demonizing.)lemurcat12 wrote: »
I've seen that. It's funny.MakePeasNotWar wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
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.
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.
I know I'm not the one you're asking, but apparently sugar free gummi bears have some pretty demonic powers.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/reviews/B008JELLCA
I've been reading forever about "demonization" and how it imbues food with power. I've wondered about what the heck these people mean when they say these things and have decided to find out what they mean by asking when it comes up.
Can't know until you ask!
I answered.
Hmm. "Demonizing" = "sugar is the devil." (Which is something I've seen around here multiple times.) Human beings cannot handle 50% carb diets, and so carbs are the reason we are fat. "FAT makes you FAT!" "I got fat because if I eat processed foods I cannot stop, as they were designed by corporate America to be impossible to resist." "I did not get fat from overeating, but because I ate small amounts of 'insert allegedly 'bad' food here' which causes my body to gain weight even on 1200 calories." Food X is "disgusting, terrible, and if you eat it you cannot be healthy." "Sugar is just like heroin!" "Only pigs eat fast food"--although this is more about demonizing people, of course. Anyway, stuff like that.
I should clarify, though, that what I described before is how people give food power over them. I think "demonization" (as defined in this post) is somewhat separate. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they do not. My problem with demonization is that it's dishonest and not a logical way to think, not that it conveys power (it might or might not depending on the specifics--again, that's addressed in the prior post).
I agree with this.
I don't agree necessarily with the notion that someone choosing to eliminate something from their diet is necessarily by default demonizing that food, unless they are eliminating that food because they hold those sorts of beliefs Lemurcat outlined.
Stuff like "modern gluten makes us fat" or "processed foods are the cause of the obesity epidemic!". Things like that.
Anything that imbues a food with a power unto itself outside of one's personal responsibility for consuming it within the confines of the energy balance equation is demonizing the food.
The opposite of giving food a health halo, maybe?
0 -
Yes or no:
As for the science, if science says food has or can have an outcome, sure, I accept that. Bad is a morality term, and barring some people I vehemently disagree with, generally science isn't in the field of determining morals. What I tend to see is the consquences of stress from creating rules for oneself about food are more likely to hurt a person than most of the food they eat in moderation. For an example, a celiac avoiding gluten isn't demonizing food, but someone on a low carb for no reason or believes they have self diagnosed gluten sensitivity avoid it is demonizing it.
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.
If you care not one wit what the mechanism is, I'll restate it in dramatic fashion: if you make food something you can't have, you actually make avoiding over consuming it harder. You make it more crave-able because it now isn't just a food you enjoy, it is a food you enjoy, and it is something you're being told (even by yourself) that you can't have. Now you're suddenly thinking "how will I live my life without ever consuming white bread ever again?", and then you're on the floor covered in baguette crumbs. Instead, you could have just had a slice, logged it, kept your macros, and not burnt up willpower fighting the thing mentally.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
I get what powers you believe the food has when it's demonized. You believe it can then force people to eat it. Thank you for answering that. I'm just not clear on what you do and don't believe is "demonizing" the food.
I'm not arguing and am not planning to argue with your ideas. They're your ideas and you're entitled to them. I'm just trying to understand them.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
Indeterminate. I can't say any single food is harmful absent knowledge of the person consuming it, and the diet they're consuming it in. If you want to force a dichotomy, the only possible answer I can give is all food is harmful - "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison" Paracelsus .
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
Look at my answer about someone with celiac's disease. I said if a celiac avoided bread because of gluten, that isn't demonizing.
As for your last statement - no, one of the horrible things is the belief that we're entitled to our opinion and somehow that prevents them from subject to criticism. If you have criticism of my idea, please go ahead.
Nope, no intention of criticizing.
Well, I will say this: Saying that no food is harmful unless you know the "context" of the food and the person consuming it...it's tantamount to saying that you don't believe any food is, in and of itself, harmful.
You could've just said, "No."
But you're 100% entitled to your own beliefs and I'm not going to tell you that you should change them.
I really am just trying to figure out what everyone means. 0 -
Yes or no:
As for the science, if science says food has or can have an outcome, sure, I accept that. Bad is a morality term, and barring some people I vehemently disagree with, generally science isn't in the field of determining morals. What I tend to see is the consquences of stress from creating rules for oneself about food are more likely to hurt a person than most of the food they eat in moderation. For an example, a celiac avoiding gluten isn't demonizing food, but someone on a low carb for no reason or believes they have self diagnosed gluten sensitivity avoid it is demonizing it.
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.
If you care not one wit what the mechanism is, I'll restate it in dramatic fashion: if you make food something you can't have, you actually make avoiding over consuming it harder. You make it more crave-able because it now isn't just a food you enjoy, it is a food you enjoy, and it is something you're being told (even by yourself) that you can't have. Now you're suddenly thinking "how will I live my life without ever consuming white bread ever again?", and then you're on the floor covered in baguette crumbs. Instead, you could have just had a slice, logged it, kept your macros, and not burnt up willpower fighting the thing mentally.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
I get what powers you believe the food has when it's demonized. You believe it can then force people to eat it. Thank you for answering that. I'm just not clear on what you do and don't believe is "demonizing" the food.
I'm not arguing and am not planning to argue with your ideas. They're your ideas and you're entitled to them. I'm just trying to understand them.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
Indeterminate. I can't say any single food is harmful absent knowledge of the person consuming it, and the diet they're consuming it in. If you want to force a dichotomy, the only possible answer I can give is all food is harmful - "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison" Paracelsus .
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
Look at my answer about someone with celiac's disease. I said if a celiac avoided bread because of gluten, that isn't demonizing.
As for your last statement - no, one of the horrible things is the belief that we're entitled to our opinion and somehow that prevents them from subject to criticism. If you have criticism of my idea, please go ahead.
Nope, no intention of criticizing.
Well, I will say this: Saying that no food is harmful unless you know the "context" of the food and the person consuming it...it's tantamount to saying that you don't believe any food is, in and of itself, harmful.
You could've just said, "No."
But you're 100% entitled to your own beliefs and I'm not going to tell you that you should change them.
I really am just trying to figure out what everyone means.
How about this?
Let's assume I am completely convinced by the current recommendations of the USDA, the WHO, the NHS, the AHA, et al.
Based on those recommendations I should (ideally) not consume more than 5% of my overall calories from free sugar (as defined by the WHO). I also should not consume more than 7% of my calories from saturated fat. I should avoid artificial transfats.
So I will conclude that foods that contain artificial transfats are probably not good for me at all. (I don't think I eat anything they are in, so this is a big shrug for me, but okay.)
Beyond that, what? Should I cut out the steak because saturated fat? But if my overall diet is otherwise low in saturated fat and the steak adds iron and protein, among other things, and fits in my calories, is it unhealthy? I don't see how we can conclude it is. Especially if I really enjoy steak and broccoli and am more likely to stick to my overall healthy diet if I get some steak with my broccoli.
Similar to this, should I ditch my apple cobbler? It's got some sugar AND butter in it, so clearly I should watch my portions, but is it going to hurt me to include it within the limits recommended? Don't see why. So is it "unhealthy"? I wouldn't say so. Can you eat it in an unhealthy way? Sure, but that's about dose, not the food itself.
So last night I finished dinner and had about 100 calories left. What was the healthiest thing to eat? Broccoli and kale? After all, they are super healthy, right? Raspberries? They are tasty, and fiber is nice to have. But I'd already had lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber and was actually low on protein, so that matters to what the best choice would have been. I would have picked something different if I'd had lots of meat and fat and few veggies that day.
(In reality I didn't eat anything because I wasn't hungry and the way it's been I will want the calories later in the week.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yes or no:
As for the science, if science says food has or can have an outcome, sure, I accept that. Bad is a morality term, and barring some people I vehemently disagree with, generally science isn't in the field of determining morals. What I tend to see is the consquences of stress from creating rules for oneself about food are more likely to hurt a person than most of the food they eat in moderation. For an example, a celiac avoiding gluten isn't demonizing food, but someone on a low carb for no reason or believes they have self diagnosed gluten sensitivity avoid it is demonizing it.
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.
If you care not one wit what the mechanism is, I'll restate it in dramatic fashion: if you make food something you can't have, you actually make avoiding over consuming it harder. You make it more crave-able because it now isn't just a food you enjoy, it is a food you enjoy, and it is something you're being told (even by yourself) that you can't have. Now you're suddenly thinking "how will I live my life without ever consuming white bread ever again?", and then you're on the floor covered in baguette crumbs. Instead, you could have just had a slice, logged it, kept your macros, and not burnt up willpower fighting the thing mentally.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
I get what powers you believe the food has when it's demonized. You believe it can then force people to eat it. Thank you for answering that. I'm just not clear on what you do and don't believe is "demonizing" the food.
I'm not arguing and am not planning to argue with your ideas. They're your ideas and you're entitled to them. I'm just trying to understand them.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
Indeterminate. I can't say any single food is harmful absent knowledge of the person consuming it, and the diet they're consuming it in. If you want to force a dichotomy, the only possible answer I can give is all food is harmful - "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison" Paracelsus .
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
Look at my answer about someone with celiac's disease. I said if a celiac avoided bread because of gluten, that isn't demonizing.
As for your last statement - no, one of the horrible things is the belief that we're entitled to our opinion and somehow that prevents them from subject to criticism. If you have criticism of my idea, please go ahead.
Nope, no intention of criticizing.
Well, I will say this: Saying that no food is harmful unless you know the "context" of the food and the person consuming it...it's tantamount to saying that you don't believe any food is, in and of itself, harmful.
You could've just said, "No."
But you're 100% entitled to your own beliefs and I'm not going to tell you that you should change them.
I really am just trying to figure out what everyone means.
How about this?
Let's assume I am completely convinced by the current recommendations of the USDA, the WHO, the NHS, the AHA, et al.
Based on those recommendations I should (ideally) not consume more than 5% of my overall calories from free sugar (as defined by the WHO). I also should not consume more than 7% of my calories from saturated fat. I should avoid artificial transfats.
So I will conclude that foods that contain artificial transfats are probably not good for me at all. (I don't think I eat anything they are in, so this is a big shrug for me, but okay.)
Beyond that, what? Should I cut out the steak because saturated fat? But if my overall diet is otherwise low in saturated fat and the steak adds iron and protein, among other things, and fits in my calories, is it unhealthy? I don't see how we can conclude it is. Especially if I really enjoy steak and broccoli and am more likely to stick to my overall healthy diet if I get some steak with my broccoli.
Similar to this, should I ditch my apple cobbler? It's got some sugar AND butter in it, so clearly I should watch my portions, but is it going to hurt me to include it within the limits recommended? Don't see why. So is it "unhealthy"? I wouldn't say so. Can you eat it in an unhealthy way? Sure, but that's about dose, not the food itself.
So last night I finished dinner and had about 100 calories left. What was the healthiest thing to eat? Broccoli and kale? After all, they are super healthy, right? Raspberries? They are tasty, and fiber is nice to have. But I'd already had lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber and was actually low on protein, so that matters to what the best choice would have been. I would have picked something different if I'd had lots of meat and fat and few veggies that day.
(In reality I didn't eat anything because I wasn't hungry and the way it's been I will want the calories later in the week.)
You should do whatever the heck you want. I have not told anyone they should change their diet. I don't intend to. I don't even want to.
As I have told you, many, many, MANY times, I think everyone should eat whatever they want and not be badgered into changing their WOE.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
The Eskimo (Inuit) population dispelled that myth a long, long time ago.stevencloser wrote: »There are no essential carbohydrates because your body is so dependent on them you would die if they were and you went without them for a short time.
Read my post again.
Your body needs glucose. You just don't need to eat them, because your body can make it itself out of other food sources and your body stores.
Essential in dietary terms means that your body can't make it out of other things, it needs to be eaten to be present in your body.
There's a few bodily functions (very important ones, brain stuff mostly) that rely solely on glucose, no substitutes accepted.
So here's what would happen if carbs WERE essential and you wouldn't eat them(to the extend of my knowledge, feel free to correct me):
Your blood glucose would drop, your body uses its glycogen stores to bring it back up again, that goes well for a few days until the glycogen stores are depleted (since you're not eating carbs to replenish them and your body can't make more), your blood glucose would drop again, you'd enter hypoglycemia, then die.
We'd probably be extinct if carbs were essential.
You can go a pretty long time eating no fats or proteins without dying because your body has long term stores for them in form of your fat tissue and lean body mass respectively. There's not much stores for glucose though, only the glycogen storage in your muscles and liver, and that runs out fast when there's nothing to replenish it.
Why are you saying this?
Every body can make the glucose it needs if carbohydrate is not eaten.
I explained why it's important that your body can do it, and that it's a good thing they're not essential.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yes or no:
As for the science, if science says food has or can have an outcome, sure, I accept that. Bad is a morality term, and barring some people I vehemently disagree with, generally science isn't in the field of determining morals. What I tend to see is the consquences of stress from creating rules for oneself about food are more likely to hurt a person than most of the food they eat in moderation. For an example, a celiac avoiding gluten isn't demonizing food, but someone on a low carb for no reason or believes they have self diagnosed gluten sensitivity avoid it is demonizing it.
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.
If you care not one wit what the mechanism is, I'll restate it in dramatic fashion: if you make food something you can't have, you actually make avoiding over consuming it harder. You make it more crave-able because it now isn't just a food you enjoy, it is a food you enjoy, and it is something you're being told (even by yourself) that you can't have. Now you're suddenly thinking "how will I live my life without ever consuming white bread ever again?", and then you're on the floor covered in baguette crumbs. Instead, you could have just had a slice, logged it, kept your macros, and not burnt up willpower fighting the thing mentally.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
I get what powers you believe the food has when it's demonized. You believe it can then force people to eat it. Thank you for answering that. I'm just not clear on what you do and don't believe is "demonizing" the food.
I'm not arguing and am not planning to argue with your ideas. They're your ideas and you're entitled to them. I'm just trying to understand them.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
Indeterminate. I can't say any single food is harmful absent knowledge of the person consuming it, and the diet they're consuming it in. If you want to force a dichotomy, the only possible answer I can give is all food is harmful - "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison" Paracelsus .
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
Look at my answer about someone with celiac's disease. I said if a celiac avoided bread because of gluten, that isn't demonizing.
As for your last statement - no, one of the horrible things is the belief that we're entitled to our opinion and somehow that prevents them from subject to criticism. If you have criticism of my idea, please go ahead.
Nope, no intention of criticizing.
Well, I will say this: Saying that no food is harmful unless you know the "context" of the food and the person consuming it...it's tantamount to saying that you don't believe any food is, in and of itself, harmful.
You could've just said, "No."
But you're 100% entitled to your own beliefs and I'm not going to tell you that you should change them.
I really am just trying to figure out what everyone means.
How about this?
Let's assume I am completely convinced by the current recommendations of the USDA, the WHO, the NHS, the AHA, et al.
Based on those recommendations I should (ideally) not consume more than 5% of my overall calories from free sugar (as defined by the WHO). I also should not consume more than 7% of my calories from saturated fat. I should avoid artificial transfats.
So I will conclude that foods that contain artificial transfats are probably not good for me at all. (I don't think I eat anything they are in, so this is a big shrug for me, but okay.)
Beyond that, what? Should I cut out the steak because saturated fat? But if my overall diet is otherwise low in saturated fat and the steak adds iron and protein, among other things, and fits in my calories, is it unhealthy? I don't see how we can conclude it is. Especially if I really enjoy steak and broccoli and am more likely to stick to my overall healthy diet if I get some steak with my broccoli.
Similar to this, should I ditch my apple cobbler? It's got some sugar AND butter in it, so clearly I should watch my portions, but is it going to hurt me to include it within the limits recommended? Don't see why. So is it "unhealthy"? I wouldn't say so. Can you eat it in an unhealthy way? Sure, but that's about dose, not the food itself.
So last night I finished dinner and had about 100 calories left. What was the healthiest thing to eat? Broccoli and kale? After all, they are super healthy, right? Raspberries? They are tasty, and fiber is nice to have. But I'd already had lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber and was actually low on protein, so that matters to what the best choice would have been. I would have picked something different if I'd had lots of meat and fat and few veggies that day.
(In reality I didn't eat anything because I wasn't hungry and the way it's been I will want the calories later in the week.)
You should do whatever the heck you want. I have not told anyone they should change their diet. I don't intend to. I don't even want to.
As I have told you, many, many, MANY times, I think everyone should eat whatever they want and not be badgered into changing their WOE.
Sigh. I am NOT talking about how I eat. I am not asking you for your input in how I eat.
I am trying to address YOUR question, specifically: "I really am just trying to figure out what everyone means."
You seemed puzzled about senecarr's point, namely: "Saying that no food is harmful unless you know the "context" of the food and the person consuming it...it's tantamount to saying that you don't believe any food is, in and of itself, harmful."
I was simply attempting to elaborate on why I would generally agree with that (but likely for transfats--I think they may be unhealthy even in small quantities, although likely with a normal person it's still a dosage issue).
If my answer was not helpful or of interest, I apologize. I am not sure why you think I was thinking that you were expressing an opinion on my diet, though. My examples were hypothetical.0 -
.lemurcat12 wrote: »How about this?
Let's assume I am completely convinced by the current recommendations of the USDA, the WHO, the NHS, the AHA, et al.
Based on those recommendations I should (ideally) not consume more than 5% of my overall calories from free sugar (as defined by the WHO). I also should not consume more than 7% of my calories from saturated fat. I should avoid artificial transfats.
So I will conclude that foods that contain artificial transfats are probably not good for me at all. (I don't think I eat anything they are in, so this is a big shrug for me, but okay.)
Beyond that, what? Should I cut out the steak because saturated fat? But if my overall diet is otherwise low in saturated fat and the steak adds iron and protein, among other things, and fits in my calories, is it unhealthy? I don't see how we can conclude it is. Especially if I really enjoy steak and broccoli and am more likely to stick to my overall healthy diet if I get some steak with my broccoli.
Similar to this, should I ditch my apple cobbler? It's got some sugar AND butter in it, so clearly I should watch my portions, but is it going to hurt me to include it within the limits recommended? Don't see why. So is it "unhealthy"? I wouldn't say so. Can you eat it in an unhealthy way? Sure, but that's about dose, not the food itself.
So last night I finished dinner and had about 100 calories left. What was the healthiest thing to eat? Broccoli and kale? After all, they are super healthy, right? Raspberries? They are tasty, and fiber is nice to have. But I'd already had lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber and was actually low on protein, so that matters to what the best choice would have been. I would have picked something different if I'd had lots of meat and fat and few veggies that day.
(In reality I didn't eat anything because I wasn't hungry and the way it's been I will want the calories later in the week.)
.
.. Sigh. I am NOT talking about how I eat. I am not asking you for your input on how I eat.
You can see, from the bolded part of your post, where a person might get the - sigh - impression that you were asking about it.
If you wanted to express support for another poster even though, technically, you were disagreeing with him, perhaps you could've quoted that person and said all that. Or even quote me, but let me know that your questions about your diet were really just there to express support of an idea you technically disagree with.
I sent you a message.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.
And maybe some people have varying degrees of dopamine responses from you or the norm. So that theoretical relationship might not apply to them at all. Is it then OK for them to demonize?
There is actually an obese/serotonin/carbohydrates relationship. Those people might be better off not viewing a cupcake as innocent calories just waiting to be regulated by sheer willpower.
I don't have answers for everyone else, but like any reasonable person just try different things til I find out what works for my circumstances. When I find my answers, I will definitely not be telling others my way is the only way that will work for them.
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.0 -
No, it isn't a no, and it isn't a yes. It is an undecidable question, like if I ask you to tell me the number that is 1/0. You can't tell me a specific number for that if I request you give me a number for it.
Yes or no:
As for the science, if science says food has or can have an outcome, sure, I accept that. Bad is a morality term, and barring some people I vehemently disagree with, generally science isn't in the field of determining morals. What I tend to see is the consquences of stress from creating rules for oneself about food are more likely to hurt a person than most of the food they eat in moderation. For an example, a celiac avoiding gluten isn't demonizing food, but someone on a low carb for no reason or believes they have self diagnosed gluten sensitivity avoid it is demonizing it.
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.
If you care not one wit what the mechanism is, I'll restate it in dramatic fashion: if you make food something you can't have, you actually make avoiding over consuming it harder. You make it more crave-able because it now isn't just a food you enjoy, it is a food you enjoy, and it is something you're being told (even by yourself) that you can't have. Now you're suddenly thinking "how will I live my life without ever consuming white bread ever again?", and then you're on the floor covered in baguette crumbs. Instead, you could have just had a slice, logged it, kept your macros, and not burnt up willpower fighting the thing mentally.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
I get what powers you believe the food has when it's demonized. You believe it can then force people to eat it. Thank you for answering that. I'm just not clear on what you do and don't believe is "demonizing" the food.
I'm not arguing and am not planning to argue with your ideas. They're your ideas and you're entitled to them. I'm just trying to understand them.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
Indeterminate. I can't say any single food is harmful absent knowledge of the person consuming it, and the diet they're consuming it in. If you want to force a dichotomy, the only possible answer I can give is all food is harmful - "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison" Paracelsus .
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
Look at my answer about someone with celiac's disease. I said if a celiac avoided bread because of gluten, that isn't demonizing.
As for your last statement - no, one of the horrible things is the belief that we're entitled to our opinion and somehow that prevents them from subject to criticism. If you have criticism of my idea, please go ahead.
Nope, no intention of criticizing.
Well, I will say this: Saying that no food is harmful unless you know the "context" of the food and the person consuming it...it's tantamount to saying that you don't believe any food is, in and of itself, harmful.
You could've just said, "No."
But you're 100% entitled to your own beliefs and I'm not going to tell you that you should change them.
I really am just trying to figure out what everyone means.
And again, no one is entitled to their beliefs. I can stop believing in gravity, but it doesn't prevent me from getting hurt if I jump out the window.0 -
.lemurcat12 wrote: »How about this?
Let's assume I am completely convinced by the current recommendations of the USDA, the WHO, the NHS, the AHA, et al.
Based on those recommendations I should (ideally) not consume more than 5% of my overall calories from free sugar (as defined by the WHO). I also should not consume more than 7% of my calories from saturated fat. I should avoid artificial transfats.
So I will conclude that foods that contain artificial transfats are probably not good for me at all. (I don't think I eat anything they are in, so this is a big shrug for me, but okay.)
Beyond that, what? Should I cut out the steak because saturated fat? But if my overall diet is otherwise low in saturated fat and the steak adds iron and protein, among other things, and fits in my calories, is it unhealthy? I don't see how we can conclude it is. Especially if I really enjoy steak and broccoli and am more likely to stick to my overall healthy diet if I get some steak with my broccoli.
Similar to this, should I ditch my apple cobbler? It's got some sugar AND butter in it, so clearly I should watch my portions, but is it going to hurt me to include it within the limits recommended? Don't see why. So is it "unhealthy"? I wouldn't say so. Can you eat it in an unhealthy way? Sure, but that's about dose, not the food itself.
So last night I finished dinner and had about 100 calories left. What was the healthiest thing to eat? Broccoli and kale? After all, they are super healthy, right? Raspberries? They are tasty, and fiber is nice to have. But I'd already had lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber and was actually low on protein, so that matters to what the best choice would have been. I would have picked something different if I'd had lots of meat and fat and few veggies that day.
(In reality I didn't eat anything because I wasn't hungry and the way it's been I will want the calories later in the week.)
.
.. Sigh. I am NOT talking about how I eat. I am not asking you for your input on how I eat.
You can see, from the bolded part of your post, where a person might get the - sigh - impression that you were asking about it.
They were hypothetical questions -- how someone might think about it and why you had to consider context to answer the question. That's what you seemed puzzled about. I don't need approval on what I eat (and I doubt I'll have apple cobbler any time soon because I don't feel like making it).If you wanted to express support for another poster even though, technically, you were disagreeing with him, perhaps you could be quoted that person and said all that.
I was not expressing support for senecarr. I was explaining my understanding of a point he made that I happen to agree with, and that you seemed to be asking for explanations of. I am interested in discussing the point itself, but you seem to want to make this personal. If it helps, I don't assume you have an opinion on my diet and I don't particularly care if you do, just as you shouldn't care about what I think of your diet (which is nothing except that you and I seem to have different taste preferences other than with fruit).0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
It works for millions, as does other tools like moderation.
Both are sustainable and both are challenging and unsustainable (different horses for different courses).
OP - try it, low carb diets can be extremely healthy. The only thing that will happen is it will work, or it won't work.
The main thing to realise is, its not a magic pill! Its a tool to help you eat in a calorie deficit, which is the only way you will lose weight.
Good luck.
Agree 100%0 -
You don't agree. You believe that some foods, in and of themselves, are bad for you. He doesn't believe that.lemurcat12 wrote: »
.lemurcat12 wrote: »How about this?
Let's assume I am completely convinced by the current recommendations of the USDA, the WHO, the NHS, the AHA, et al.
Based on those recommendations I should (ideally) not consume more than 5% of my overall calories from free sugar (as defined by the WHO). I also should not consume more than 7% of my calories from saturated fat. I should avoid artificial transfats.
So I will conclude that foods that contain artificial transfats are probably not good for me at all. (I don't think I eat anything they are in, so this is a big shrug for me, but okay.)
Beyond that, what? Should I cut out the steak because saturated fat? But if my overall diet is otherwise low in saturated fat and the steak adds iron and protein, among other things, and fits in my calories, is it unhealthy? I don't see how we can conclude it is. Especially if I really enjoy steak and broccoli and am more likely to stick to my overall healthy diet if I get some steak with my broccoli.
Similar to this, should I ditch my apple cobbler? It's got some sugar AND butter in it, so clearly I should watch my portions, but is it going to hurt me to include it within the limits recommended? Don't see why. So is it "unhealthy"? I wouldn't say so. Can you eat it in an unhealthy way? Sure, but that's about dose, not the food itself.
So last night I finished dinner and had about 100 calories left. What was the healthiest thing to eat? Broccoli and kale? After all, they are super healthy, right? Raspberries? They are tasty, and fiber is nice to have. But I'd already had lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber and was actually low on protein, so that matters to what the best choice would have been. I would have picked something different if I'd had lots of meat and fat and few veggies that day.
(In reality I didn't eat anything because I wasn't hungry and the way it's been I will want the calories later in the week.)
.
.. Sigh. I am NOT talking about how I eat. I am not asking you for your input on how I eat.
You can see, from the bolded part of your post, where a person might get the - sigh - impression that you were asking about it.
They were hypothetical questions -- how someone might think about it and why you had to consider context to answer the question. That's what you seemed puzzled about. I don't need approval on what I eat (and I doubt I'll have apple cobbler any time soon because I don't feel like making it).If you wanted to express support for another poster even though, technically, you were disagreeing with him, perhaps you could be quoted that person and said all that.
I was not expressing support for senecarr. I was explaining my understanding of a point he made that I happen to agree with, and that you seemed to be asking for explanations of. I am interested in discussing the point itself, but you seem to want to make this personal. If it helps, I don't assume you have an opinion on my diet and I don't particularly care if you do, just as you shouldn't care about what I think of your diet (which is nothing except that you and I seem to have different taste preferences other than with fruit).
I made it personal? Seriously? No. I asked for answers to questions that aren't personal. I did not attempt to draw anyone into a fight about their beliefs.
I was always impressed with how well-balanced your diet was. I strive for that. But the truth is that I really don't care what other people eat. If you choose to subsist solely on Ding Dongs and Crunch Berries, I'd be fine with that.
No, I don't care about whether anyone here approves of my diet. It's nice to share ideas. I've picked up some great tips and read some encouraging things here. But I won't be changing my WOE because someone doesn't approve. I don't care if they don't approve. They can't lose my weight or make me healthier. Only I can do that...well, me, the doctors and most important, Lady Luck. No amount of criticism, insults or even money could steer me from doing what I believe is best for me.
Everyone should do what they believe is best for them! Maybe it's what I do, maybe it isn't. Either way, if they believe it's best, that's what they should do!0 -
No, it isn't a no, and it isn't a yes. It is an undecidable question, like if I ask you to tell me the number that is 1/0. You can't tell me a specific number for that if I request you give me a number for it.
Yes or no:
As for the science, if science says food has or can have an outcome, sure, I accept that. Bad is a morality term, and barring some people I vehemently disagree with, generally science isn't in the field of determining morals. What I tend to see is the consquences of stress from creating rules for oneself about food are more likely to hurt a person than most of the food they eat in moderation. For an example, a celiac avoiding gluten isn't demonizing food, but someone on a low carb for no reason or believes they have self diagnosed gluten sensitivity avoid it is demonizing it.
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.
If you care not one wit what the mechanism is, I'll restate it in dramatic fashion: if you make food something you can't have, you actually make avoiding over consuming it harder. You make it more crave-able because it now isn't just a food you enjoy, it is a food you enjoy, and it is something you're being told (even by yourself) that you can't have. Now you're suddenly thinking "how will I live my life without ever consuming white bread ever again?", and then you're on the floor covered in baguette crumbs. Instead, you could have just had a slice, logged it, kept your macros, and not burnt up willpower fighting the thing mentally.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
I get what powers you believe the food has when it's demonized. You believe it can then force people to eat it. Thank you for answering that. I'm just not clear on what you do and don't believe is "demonizing" the food.
I'm not arguing and am not planning to argue with your ideas. They're your ideas and you're entitled to them. I'm just trying to understand them.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
Indeterminate. I can't say any single food is harmful absent knowledge of the person consuming it, and the diet they're consuming it in. If you want to force a dichotomy, the only possible answer I can give is all food is harmful - "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison" Paracelsus .
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
Look at my answer about someone with celiac's disease. I said if a celiac avoided bread because of gluten, that isn't demonizing.
As for your last statement - no, one of the horrible things is the belief that we're entitled to our opinion and somehow that prevents them from subject to criticism. If you have criticism of my idea, please go ahead.
Nope, no intention of criticizing.
Well, I will say this: Saying that no food is harmful unless you know the "context" of the food and the person consuming it...it's tantamount to saying that you don't believe any food is, in and of itself, harmful.
You could've just said, "No."
But you're 100% entitled to your own beliefs and I'm not going to tell you that you should change them.
I really am just trying to figure out what everyone means.
And again, no one is entitled to their beliefs. I can stop believing in gravity, but it doesn't prevent me from getting hurt if I jump out the window.
I didn't give you a question with no way to answer it. I asked you a "Yes or No" question. You thought it was much more complicated than that. I appreciate your attempts to answer to the best of your ability and I have an understanding of what you think now, which is all I ever wanted.
I'm not going to tell you what I think you should think. You should think what you think! 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
.lemurcat12 wrote: »How about this?
Let's assume I am completely convinced by the current recommendations of the USDA, the WHO, the NHS, the AHA, et al.
Based on those recommendations I should (ideally) not consume more than 5% of my overall calories from free sugar (as defined by the WHO). I also should not consume more than 7% of my calories from saturated fat. I should avoid artificial transfats.
So I will conclude that foods that contain artificial transfats are probably not good for me at all. (I don't think I eat anything they are in, so this is a big shrug for me, but okay.)
Beyond that, what? Should I cut out the steak because saturated fat? But if my overall diet is otherwise low in saturated fat and the steak adds iron and protein, among other things, and fits in my calories, is it unhealthy? I don't see how we can conclude it is. Especially if I really enjoy steak and broccoli and am more likely to stick to my overall healthy diet if I get some steak with my broccoli.
Similar to this, should I ditch my apple cobbler? It's got some sugar AND butter in it, so clearly I should watch my portions, but is it going to hurt me to include it within the limits recommended? Don't see why. So is it "unhealthy"? I wouldn't say so. Can you eat it in an unhealthy way? Sure, but that's about dose, not the food itself.
So last night I finished dinner and had about 100 calories left. What was the healthiest thing to eat? Broccoli and kale? After all, they are super healthy, right? Raspberries? They are tasty, and fiber is nice to have. But I'd already had lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber and was actually low on protein, so that matters to what the best choice would have been. I would have picked something different if I'd had lots of meat and fat and few veggies that day.
(In reality I didn't eat anything because I wasn't hungry and the way it's been I will want the calories later in the week.)
.
.. Sigh. I am NOT talking about how I eat. I am not asking you for your input on how I eat.
You can see, from the bolded part of your post, where a person might get the - sigh - impression that you were asking about it.
They were hypothetical questions -- how someone might think about it and why you had to consider context to answer the question. That's what you seemed puzzled about. I don't need approval on what I eat (and I doubt I'll have apple cobbler any time soon because I don't feel like making it).If you wanted to express support for another poster even though, technically, you were disagreeing with him, perhaps you could be quoted that person and said all that.
I was not expressing support for senecarr. I was explaining my understanding of a point he made that I happen to agree with, and that you seemed to be asking for explanations of. I am interested in discussing the point itself, but you seem to want to make this personal. If it helps, I don't assume you have an opinion on my diet and I don't particularly care if you do, just as you shouldn't care about what I think of your diet (which is nothing except that you and I seem to have different taste preferences other than with fruit).
You don't agree. You believe that some foods, in and of themselves, are bad for you. He doesn't believe that.
I agree with the point which was most of the time you need to know context and dosage and specifics about the person to be able to say whether a choice is or is not healthy. He and I may disagree as to whether a few things are worth avoiding even in small quantities, but to me that's pretty irrelevant as those aren't foods I am considering anyway. Normally when the question is raised it's about foods like the ones I mentioned, which is why I gave those hypotheticals.I made it personal? Seriously? No. I asked for answers to questions that aren't personal. I did not attempt to draw anyone into a fight about their beliefs.
You seemed to think I was making this about my own diet or about my "support" for senecarr. IMO, it's about the question you raised--can we say a food (let's say a steak) is "unhealthy" without more? If the way I worded my response led to misunderstanding, I apologize, but I believe I have now clarified.But I won't be changing my WOE because someone doesn't approve.
You can be comfortable that I have no opinion and will not ask you to change how you eat. That would be ridiculous. If you thought I was making any argument along those lines, you have misunderstood.0 -
I only thought those thing because you said them, lol.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
.lemurcat12 wrote: »How about this?
Let's assume I am completely convinced by the current recommendations of the USDA, the WHO, the NHS, the AHA, et al.
Based on those recommendations I should (ideally) not consume more than 5% of my overall calories from free sugar (as defined by the WHO). I also should not consume more than 7% of my calories from saturated fat. I should avoid artificial transfats.
So I will conclude that foods that contain artificial transfats are probably not good for me at all. (I don't think I eat anything they are in, so this is a big shrug for me, but okay.)
Beyond that, what? Should I cut out the steak because saturated fat? But if my overall diet is otherwise low in saturated fat and the steak adds iron and protein, among other things, and fits in my calories, is it unhealthy? I don't see how we can conclude it is. Especially if I really enjoy steak and broccoli and am more likely to stick to my overall healthy diet if I get some steak with my broccoli.
Similar to this, should I ditch my apple cobbler? It's got some sugar AND butter in it, so clearly I should watch my portions, but is it going to hurt me to include it within the limits recommended? Don't see why. So is it "unhealthy"? I wouldn't say so. Can you eat it in an unhealthy way? Sure, but that's about dose, not the food itself.
So last night I finished dinner and had about 100 calories left. What was the healthiest thing to eat? Broccoli and kale? After all, they are super healthy, right? Raspberries? They are tasty, and fiber is nice to have. But I'd already had lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber and was actually low on protein, so that matters to what the best choice would have been. I would have picked something different if I'd had lots of meat and fat and few veggies that day.
(In reality I didn't eat anything because I wasn't hungry and the way it's been I will want the calories later in the week.)
.
.. Sigh. I am NOT talking about how I eat. I am not asking you for your input on how I eat.
You can see, from the bolded part of your post, where a person might get the - sigh - impression that you were asking about it.
They were hypothetical questions -- how someone might think about it and why you had to consider context to answer the question. That's what you seemed puzzled about. I don't need approval on what I eat (and I doubt I'll have apple cobbler any time soon because I don't feel like making it).If you wanted to express support for another poster even though, technically, you were disagreeing with him, perhaps you could be quoted that person and said all that.
I was not expressing support for senecarr. I was explaining my understanding of a point he made that I happen to agree with, and that you seemed to be asking for explanations of. I am interested in discussing the point itself, but you seem to want to make this personal. If it helps, I don't assume you have an opinion on my diet and I don't particularly care if you do, just as you shouldn't care about what I think of your diet (which is nothing except that you and I seem to have different taste preferences other than with fruit).
You don't agree. You believe that some foods, in and of themselves, are bad for you. He doesn't believe that.
I agree with the point which was most of the time you need to know context and dosage and specifics about the person to be able to say whether a choice is or is not healthy. He and I may disagree as to whether a few things are worth avoiding even in small quantities, but to me that's pretty irrelevant as those aren't foods I am considering anyway. Normally when the question is raised it's about foods like the ones I mentioned, which is why I gave those hypotheticals.I made it personal? Seriously? No. I asked for answers to questions that aren't personal. I did not attempt to draw anyone into a fight about their beliefs.
You seemed to think I was making this about my own diet or about my "support" for senecarr. IMO, it's about the question you raised--can we say a food (let's say a steak) is "unhealthy" without more? If the way I worded my response led to misunderstanding, I apologize, but I believe I have now clarified.But I won't be changing my WOE because someone doesn't approve.
You can be comfortable that I have no opinion and will not ask you to change how you eat. That would be ridiculous. If you thought I was making any argument along those lines, you have misunderstood.
0 -
I only thought those thing because you said them, lol.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
.lemurcat12 wrote: »How about this?
Let's assume I am completely convinced by the current recommendations of the USDA, the WHO, the NHS, the AHA, et al.
Based on those recommendations I should (ideally) not consume more than 5% of my overall calories from free sugar (as defined by the WHO). I also should not consume more than 7% of my calories from saturated fat. I should avoid artificial transfats.
So I will conclude that foods that contain artificial transfats are probably not good for me at all. (I don't think I eat anything they are in, so this is a big shrug for me, but okay.)
Beyond that, what? Should I cut out the steak because saturated fat? But if my overall diet is otherwise low in saturated fat and the steak adds iron and protein, among other things, and fits in my calories, is it unhealthy? I don't see how we can conclude it is. Especially if I really enjoy steak and broccoli and am more likely to stick to my overall healthy diet if I get some steak with my broccoli.
Similar to this, should I ditch my apple cobbler? It's got some sugar AND butter in it, so clearly I should watch my portions, but is it going to hurt me to include it within the limits recommended? Don't see why. So is it "unhealthy"? I wouldn't say so. Can you eat it in an unhealthy way? Sure, but that's about dose, not the food itself.
So last night I finished dinner and had about 100 calories left. What was the healthiest thing to eat? Broccoli and kale? After all, they are super healthy, right? Raspberries? They are tasty, and fiber is nice to have. But I'd already had lots of vegetables and plenty of fiber and was actually low on protein, so that matters to what the best choice would have been. I would have picked something different if I'd had lots of meat and fat and few veggies that day.
(In reality I didn't eat anything because I wasn't hungry and the way it's been I will want the calories later in the week.)
.
.. Sigh. I am NOT talking about how I eat. I am not asking you for your input on how I eat.
You can see, from the bolded part of your post, where a person might get the - sigh - impression that you were asking about it.
They were hypothetical questions -- how someone might think about it and why you had to consider context to answer the question. That's what you seemed puzzled about. I don't need approval on what I eat (and I doubt I'll have apple cobbler any time soon because I don't feel like making it).If you wanted to express support for another poster even though, technically, you were disagreeing with him, perhaps you could be quoted that person and said all that.
I was not expressing support for senecarr. I was explaining my understanding of a point he made that I happen to agree with, and that you seemed to be asking for explanations of. I am interested in discussing the point itself, but you seem to want to make this personal. If it helps, I don't assume you have an opinion on my diet and I don't particularly care if you do, just as you shouldn't care about what I think of your diet (which is nothing except that you and I seem to have different taste preferences other than with fruit).
You don't agree. You believe that some foods, in and of themselves, are bad for you. He doesn't believe that.
I agree with the point which was most of the time you need to know context and dosage and specifics about the person to be able to say whether a choice is or is not healthy. He and I may disagree as to whether a few things are worth avoiding even in small quantities, but to me that's pretty irrelevant as those aren't foods I am considering anyway. Normally when the question is raised it's about foods like the ones I mentioned, which is why I gave those hypotheticals.I made it personal? Seriously? No. I asked for answers to questions that aren't personal. I did not attempt to draw anyone into a fight about their beliefs.
You seemed to think I was making this about my own diet or about my "support" for senecarr. IMO, it's about the question you raised--can we say a food (let's say a steak) is "unhealthy" without more? If the way I worded my response led to misunderstanding, I apologize, but I believe I have now clarified.But I won't be changing my WOE because someone doesn't approve.
You can be comfortable that I have no opinion and will not ask you to change how you eat. That would be ridiculous. If you thought I was making any argument along those lines, you have misunderstood.
I said you should change how you eat? I am 100% sure I did not, so would you mind quoting what you are referring to. Clearly there is a misunderstanding.
I am rather dismayed and offended that you are accusing me of trying to pick a fight here. As I said above:
"IMO, it's about the question you raised--can we say a food (let's say a steak) is "unhealthy" without more? If the way I worded my response led to misunderstanding, I apologize, but I believe I have now clarified."
If you aren't interested in continuing that conversation, that's completely fine with me, but THAT's the conversation we were having, period.0 -
I suppose I'm nicer than that. If you told me you were going to jump out a window because you no longer believe in gravity, I'd probably try to stop you.
No, it isn't a no, and it isn't a yes. It is an undecidable question, like if I ask you to tell me the number that is 1/0. You can't tell me a specific number for that if I request you give me a number for it.
Yes or no:
As for the science, if science says food has or can have an outcome, sure, I accept that. Bad is a morality term, and barring some people I vehemently disagree with, generally science isn't in the field of determining morals. What I tend to see is the consquences of stress from creating rules for oneself about food are more likely to hurt a person than most of the food they eat in moderation. For an example, a celiac avoiding gluten isn't demonizing food, but someone on a low carb for no reason or believes they have self diagnosed gluten sensitivity avoid it is demonizing it.
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.
If you care not one wit what the mechanism is, I'll restate it in dramatic fashion: if you make food something you can't have, you actually make avoiding over consuming it harder. You make it more crave-able because it now isn't just a food you enjoy, it is a food you enjoy, and it is something you're being told (even by yourself) that you can't have. Now you're suddenly thinking "how will I live my life without ever consuming white bread ever again?", and then you're on the floor covered in baguette crumbs. Instead, you could have just had a slice, logged it, kept your macros, and not burnt up willpower fighting the thing mentally.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
I get what powers you believe the food has when it's demonized. You believe it can then force people to eat it. Thank you for answering that. I'm just not clear on what you do and don't believe is "demonizing" the food.
I'm not arguing and am not planning to argue with your ideas. They're your ideas and you're entitled to them. I'm just trying to understand them.
Do you believe that some food is harmful?
Yes or no:
Indeterminate. I can't say any single food is harmful absent knowledge of the person consuming it, and the diet they're consuming it in. If you want to force a dichotomy, the only possible answer I can give is all food is harmful - "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison" Paracelsus .
If the science says the food can harm you, are you still demonizing it by refusing to eat it?
Look at my answer about someone with celiac's disease. I said if a celiac avoided bread because of gluten, that isn't demonizing.
As for your last statement - no, one of the horrible things is the belief that we're entitled to our opinion and somehow that prevents them from subject to criticism. If you have criticism of my idea, please go ahead.
Nope, no intention of criticizing.
Well, I will say this: Saying that no food is harmful unless you know the "context" of the food and the person consuming it...it's tantamount to saying that you don't believe any food is, in and of itself, harmful.
You could've just said, "No."
But you're 100% entitled to your own beliefs and I'm not going to tell you that you should change them.
I really am just trying to figure out what everyone means.
And again, no one is entitled to their beliefs. I can stop believing in gravity, but it doesn't prevent me from getting hurt if I jump out the window.
I didn't give you a question with no way to answer it. I asked you a "Yes or No" question. You thought it was much more complicated than that. I appreciate your attempts to answer to the best of your ability and I have an understanding of what you think now, which is all I ever wanted.
I'm not going to tell you what I think you should think. You should think what you think!
0 -
Mandyrose1983 wrote: »so I've decided that I am going to cut all sugar and try to decrease my carbs as much as possible. I really really want to drop this weight. I want to keep sugar and refined carbs out of my life forever (or at least limit them from my diet forever). I want this to be a lifestyle change. I am huge on clean eating and I really don't eat junk. However, I have a hard time resisting the "feel good foods" when I am emotional or stressed. Any tips on how to transition to a low carbs lifestyle? Any tips on how to keep from reaching for the junk when my mood is not so good? Also, does anyone have any good substitutes for the "feel good foods"?
Is this really a matter of dropping weight or one of body composition? Have you considered introducing some manner of resistance training?0 -
-
.0
-
Maybe you are nicer than I am.I suppose I'm nicer than that. If you told me you were going to jump out a window because you no longer believe in gravity, I'd probably try to stop you.
I will not be jumping out of a window anytime soon. Of course, if I did, there would be no reason to stop me. I can't jump down, only out. My windows are about two feet off the ground, lol. The only place to jump around here is into the pool and even then, I use the stairs. I just realized that I've never jumped into my own pool. I will have to try that.
So this discussion has done me some good. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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