For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Replies
-
Alluminati wrote: »Nut butter
Say that ten times fast ...0 -
Pretty sure the point that the OP has tried to put across has been lost several pages back.
You can use the 'stickies' on here as your bible all you want...to each their own.
But everybody is different, and all the OP was trying to say (from what I see) is that it may not be appropriate to tell people looking for advice that there are no bad foods, simply because what works for some can 110% not work for others.
I know people who could eat nothing but donuts and lose weight, and I know people who could have 1 donut a day and be stopped dead in their tracks (yes, even while having a deficit).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
OP, I completely agree with you!
Any chance you will bother responding to the other posts?
Somehow I think not, although I do regret that.
I think it's rude not to address counterarguments, even to express disagreement. I'd be interested in reasoned disagreement, and would consider it (just as I've come to understand that Need2 simply means something different from "bad food" than I would and so calling it "bad food" works for her). So many seem to refuse to understand the arguments and pretend, instead, that others are ignoring nutrition, which is 180 degrees from the reality. (I think I am much more concerned with nutrition than someone who oversimplifies it to not eating a few "bad" foods.)
I'd particularly be interested in any response to how (a) not eating foods you don't want to eat or care about isn't cutting them out; and (b) the posts about how one fits "bad foods" (like my pork example) into a healthy diet (if you claim it can't be done or can't be healthy or pork shoulder is still BAD).
1. There's no rule that if one replies to OP they also must rehash every response in the thread! I simply wanted to support OP because this view is so often trashed on MFP. I think one of the general netiquette rules on most discussion boards is that you shouldn't tell other people how to post. But I guess I should be flattered that, for whatever reason, you seem to value my opinion so much!
2. I mostly participate from my phone so most posts tend to be short. I do have other things to do, so engaging in long repetitive arguments isn't high on my list.
3. For me, bad foods are those that have a bad effect on my energy, cravings, digestion, well being etc. I don't know why anyone would criticize that.
4. Re (a) I agree and I never said that. I do cut out some foods that I like but have bad effects on me, mentioned above. But I don't consider not eating foods I don't like as cutting out.
5. Re (b) you can have all the pork shoulder you want to! I have no rules about pork shoulder, especially for you.0 -
Pretty sure the point that the OP has tried to put across has been lost several pages back.
You can use the 'stickies' on here as your bible all you want...to each their own.
But everybody is different, and all the OP was trying to say (from what I see) is that it may not be appropriate to tell people looking for advice that there are no bad foods, simply because what works for some can 110% not work for others.
I know people who could eat nothing but donuts and lose weight, and I know people who could have 1 donut a day and be stopped dead in their tracks (yes, even while having a deficit).
That's totally on point. It's not about the hair-splitting argumentative posturing of definitions of food and nutrition. It is about what is appropriate, helpful, generative. Hear, hear, @Deadlift5
0 -
I would try to reserve a "junky" snack like Cheetos for a day where it's not the last thing I'll eat. I don't do well if I have something not quite nutritional at the end of the day...0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I have been using MFP for some time, but have only recently started visiting this board. I find myself surprised at the number of people who say such things as "there are no bad foods" or "you can eat whatever you want" when they no nothing of the individual circumstances of the poster.
We know that people respond differently to medicines; we know that they respond differently to alcohol. Yet people seem to assume that whatever works for them apply to everyone else.
I find that most of the "itos" food group are bad foods for me. Consider the following situation:
I typically save calories so that if I get hungry in the evening, there is room for a snack. So lets assume I am going to "spend" 160 calories.
My choices:
A. Eat 1/4 cup of nuts B. 160 calories of raw veggies with hummus or C. 160 calories of Cheetos
If I were to select A or B, I would end up more full the whole evening, and I would experiences no strong urges to eat the entire pantry. If I were to select C., I would be REALLY hungry 15 minutes later and would have to fight back INTENSE cravings to eat more.
Now my willpower is usually very good; but even if it holds up, I am starving all night. However, if I have had a really bad day or am otherwise exhausted and feeling stressed, I may be vulnerable to succumbing.
Success for me means eliminating "itos". I have gone as long as 6-7 years without touching these foods, and my weight fluctuations are within about a 15-20 pound band. This band is much larger when I eat these kind of foods.
I understand that this does not apply to everyone. But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
OP, I completely agree with you!
Any chance you will bother responding to the other posts?
Somehow I think not, although I do regret that.
I think it's rude not to address counterarguments, even to express disagreement. I'd be interested in reasoned disagreement, and would consider it (just as I've come to understand that Need2 simply means something different from "bad food" than I would and so calling it "bad food" works for her). So many seem to refuse to understand the arguments and pretend, instead, that others are ignoring nutrition, which is 180 degrees from the reality. (I think I am much more concerned with nutrition than someone who oversimplifies it to not eating a few "bad" foods.)
I'd particularly be interested in any response to how (a) not eating foods you don't want to eat or care about isn't cutting them out; and (b) the posts about how one fits "bad foods" (like my pork example) into a healthy diet (if you claim it can't be done or can't be healthy or pork shoulder is still BAD).
1. There's no rule that if one replies to OP they also must rehash every response in the thread! I simply wanted to support OP because this view is so often trashed on MFP. I think one of the general netiquette rules on most discussion boards is that you shouldn't tell other people how to post. But I guess I should be flattered that, for whatever reason, you seem to value my opinion so much!
I thought your post read as passive aggressive, and since you made a huge point of agreeing with one poster you seemed to be disagreeing with the responses which were -- contrary to your and OP's implication -- not at all anti nutrition. I find it very rude that many ignore posts saying that nutrition matters to distort the "no bad foods" position into one that suggests we should eat only Cheetos or whatever. (I have never once in my life wanted to eat Cheetos, so thinking of it as a "bad food" seems pointless to me. If you like it, eat it; if you don't, don't, but don't pretend it's because you are too good for it, it's because you don't like it.)4. For me, bad foods are those that have a bad effect on my energy, cravings, digestion, well being etc. I don't know why anyone would criticize that.
I wouldn't. I object to claiming those are BAD for everyone vs. poor choices for you at a particular time. My example is that basically pure sugar (a gel) can be a good choice when running a marathon. Also, that I am allergic to penicillin doesn't make it bad, it makes it bad for me.5. Re (a) I agree and I never said that.
Great, but OP did, and you made a huge point of agreeing with him. No one eats everything -- we all have foods that typically aren't tasty or worth it to us. Most of us don't consider that cutting out foods or requires that we label them "bad."7. Re (b) you can have all the pork shoulder you want to! I have no rules about pork shoulder, especially for you.
Cool. But the side of the argument you supported (and made a huge point of supporting) did. So it seemed like an implicit agreement.
I also don't care what you eat or don't eat. When I say (contrary to OP's argument that Cheetos are BAD), that I don't believe in bad foods, I don't mean that nutrition doesn't matter (the offensive claim that you and others have made) and I certainly don't mean you should eat Cheetos (like I said, a food that it would never cross my mind to eat). I mean that if you happen to like Cheetos, you shouldn't feel bad about that.
I suspect that we don't really disagree, but I feel like you and OP want to pretend we do, and that anyone who says "I don't believe in bad foods" is saying "eat candy constantly" and that's why I feel frustrated at the lack of engagement.
And yes, I do wish there was more actual communication on MFP. If that makes you feel good, great. Maybe you will bother communicating. That would be cool. (I don't seek your approval -- I wish that you'd reject my actual arguments vs, some made-up idea of what I'm claiming which, again, seems rude when it happens.)0 -
Pretty sure the point that the OP has tried to put across has been lost several pages back.
You can use the 'stickies' on here as your bible all you want...to each their own.
But everybody is different, and all the OP was trying to say (from what I see) is that it may not be appropriate to tell people looking for advice that there are no bad foods, simply because what works for some can 110% not work for others.
I know people who could eat nothing but donuts and lose weight, and I know people who could have 1 donut a day and be stopped dead in their tracks (yes, even while having a deficit).
That is as possible as someone Jumping up and not falling back down because "hey,everyone is different."0 -
I know people who could eat nothing but donuts and lose weight, and I know people who could have 1 donut a day and be stopped dead in their tracks (yes, even while having a deficit).
Incorrect. Those calories are not magical. Think about it, if certain calories were able to create extra matter from nothing, that would be magic. We should send donuts and other sweets to countries who have a starving population since in some of them, it will stop weight loss in its tracks....
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
There are foods that are bad for some people, but they differ for everyone. You have to figure out what you need to be healthy and happy and lose weight long term.
For me, fast food is BAD. Not because it will kill me in moderation, but because of how my mind reacts to it. So, is it really the food itself, or me?
Don't get too caught up in how others define things. Use what works for you. But understanding the underlying idea that the food itself isn't really the problem helps to focus us on ourselves, and our relationship with the food. Labeling certain foods as bad can play mind games, and shift the focus from your own behavior, and growth.
Because in the end, it's not the Whopper's fault that I drive by the BK every night after a long work day and am too tired to cook.
And the other angle is that while a food might not really be "bad", large amounts of it can create bad results for us. If all your calories are from candy bars, in the long run you might be able to stay under your calories, but you won;t be healthy.0 -
-
Pretty sure the point that the OP has tried to put across has been lost several pages back.
You can use the 'stickies' on here as your bible all you want...to each their own.
But everybody is different, and all the OP was trying to say (from what I see) is that it may not be appropriate to tell people looking for advice that there are no bad foods, simply because what works for some can 110% not work for others.
I know people who could eat nothing but donuts and lose weight, and I know people who could have 1 donut a day and be stopped dead in their tracks (yes, even while having a deficit).
The bolded is physically impossible.
0 -
But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
Yet in the history you outlined in your OP you stated that you were perfectly self aware of what your bad or trigger foods were even before entering into these forums. If that is the case for you when why would it not be the case for others unless you are perhaps smarter than the average bear?
I think we actually need to be more careful when we attempt to infantilise the adults who use these forums. There are some hugely patronising and condescending assumptions we must make, in my view, if we are to do so. I see them as follows:
1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
I think neither of the above is true for the vast majority of people who use this forum and if it does apply to a tiny minority then they weren't in a mental or emotional position to receive advice in the first place.
I think it goes without question that being kind or empathetic is a good recommendation. Should it be a requirement? No. Should we be compelled to be careful in the event our views may cause other to feel uncomfortable? No.
And perhaps most importantly of all should we allow the need to preserve feelings trump the need to provide accurate information or the free flow of ideas? Unquestionably no.
Let's not turn this place into Tumblr...
0 -
My husband is allergic to cats.
Therefore cats are a bad pet.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
paperpudding wrote: »My husband is allergic to cats.
Therefore cats are a bad pet.
Well, and have you met them?0 -
1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?0 -
Nutritionally, I think of a lot of foods as being good and bad. However, I do still eat some foods I think of as being "bad". It means that I know if I'm not very careful, I can/will damage my health (even if I just maintain my weight).0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Nobody should be boxed into a corner and stifled from airing their legitimately held viewpoint in my opinion in an adult environment (with a few exceptions pertaining to hate speech and the like.)
If some people feel that there are bad foods then they should be free to say so. Conversely, people should also be able to rebut the assertion without the attempted use of social shame to stop them doing so because they are labeled as being insensitive, uncaring or malicious for example.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Nutritionally, I think of a lot of foods as being good and bad. However, I do still eat some foods I think of as being "bad". It means that I know if I'm not very careful, I can/will damage my health (even if I just maintain my weight).
That's nice. You also feel that even gaining 1lb of fat would be detrimental to your health even though you are underweight.0 -
I may have been exaggerating a bit, but you do realize I said that because of my medical condition (which has a strong correlation with body fat)?ForecasterJason wrote: »Nutritionally, I think of a lot of foods as being good and bad. However, I do still eat some foods I think of as being "bad". It means that I know if I'm not very careful, I can/will damage my health (even if I just maintain my weight).
That's nice. You also feel that even gaining 1lb of fat would be detrimental to your health even though you are underweight.0 -
I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
I also think there are people who think that my statement "X is bad for me" logically means "anyone who eats X is bad." This is quite a stretch in logic; and is NOT something that I believe.
0 -
My definition of bad and your definition of bad may be completely different. My observation is that for some of the folks involved in this incredibly convoluted discussion are that what they now consider "bad" foods (ie triggers, unhealthy etc) were once "good" foods, as clearly they were consumed, and probably to great excess as they have now been transferred to the "bad" food side of the ledger, due to the relationship that resulted. "Good" and "Bad" are simply labels we put on food depending on our individualized relationship with it - food is just food. It is inanimate. And the value put upon it is entirely dependant on the purpose for which it is used. Even the lovely mushroom chart back a few pages was labelled as "bad" foods - because they are deadly. BUT, if you want to make someone sick or die, they are "good". Thats not to say there isnt a better choice for making someone sick/die. So, "bad" donuts exist for people who find that they derail their committment to their goals, and negatively affect their weight loss, while "good" donuts are available for people who are able to control their urges and fit them into their calories as they give those eaters pleasure, and do not negatively affect their weight loss.
Someone days ago posted about context - absolutely. Context, the inadequacies of language and semantics.0 -
No. NO, NO! By definition, if you're in a deficit, you'll be losing weight. It isn't a negotiable, everyone is different kind of thing. You'd have to be the first human being capable of photosynthesis or something else beyond human physiology to do something even close to this, and even then, it wouldn't be a deficit, it would simply mean calories in or out were wrong, so they weren't in a deficit.Pretty sure the point that the OP has tried to put across has been lost several pages back.
You can use the 'stickies' on here as your bible all you want...to each their own.
But everybody is different, and all the OP was trying to say (from what I see) is that it may not be appropriate to tell people looking for advice that there are no bad foods, simply because what works for some can 110% not work for others.
I know people who could eat nothing but donuts and lose weight, and I know people who could have 1 donut a day and be stopped dead in their tracks (yes, even while having a deficit).
Deficit is, by definition, taking away. You're saying you know people that could take 5, 1 lb plates, remove 1 of them, and still weight them out as 5 lb correctly. You're saying you know people that can subtract 5 from a number and get the same or a bigger number - against the definition of subtraction.0 -
But I think we need to be careful about telling people they can succeed while eating everything they like to eat, because there are people for whom this generalization is simply not true.
Yet in the history you outlined in your OP you stated that you were perfectly self aware of what your bad or trigger foods were even before entering into these forums. If that is the case for you when why would it not be the case for others unless you are perhaps smarter than the average bear?
I think we actually need to be more careful when we attempt to infantilise the adults who use these forums. There are some hugely patronising and condescending assumptions we must make, in my view, if we are to do so. I see them as follows:
1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
I think neither of the above is true for the vast majority of people who use this forum and if it does apply to a tiny minority then they weren't in a mental or emotional position to receive advice in the first place.
I think it goes without question that being kind or empathetic is a good recommendation. Should it be a requirement? No. Should we be compelled to be careful in the event our views may cause other to feel uncomfortable? No.
And perhaps most importantly of all should we allow the need to preserve feelings trump the need to provide accurate information or the free flow of ideas? Unquestionably no.
Let's not turn this place into Tumblr...
This. I don't understand why people insist upon assuming that others are complete idiots or lack sense such that they might react to the statement that you can lose weight eating anything to mean that nutrition doesn't matter or it will make no difference to how hungry they are (contrary to their own personal experience) or by eating only donuts. It's absurd and offensive. Treat others as if they are of normal intelligence and responsible people.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.0 -
I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
I also think there are people who think that my statement "X is bad for me" logically means "anyone who eats X is bad." This is quite a stretch in logic; and is NOT something that I believe.
I was right. I do regret posting in this thread. I explained a while back in this thread why blaming the foods was detrimental to me. Do I think taking the blamr off food is helpful to people? I hope so. Otherwise I would never expose myself like that on the Internet.
Qualifying statements like mine as an attack or insults is designed to do nothing more than shut down my experiences and increase the drama. Try reading your own thread and see that many here have explained themselves over and over again even though no one is listening.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
I also think there are people who think that my statement "X is bad for me" logically means "anyone who eats X is bad." This is quite a stretch in logic; and is NOT something that I believe.
I was right. I do regret posting in this thread. I explained a while back in this thread why blaming the foods was detrimental to me. Do I think taking the blamr off food is helpful to people? I hope so. Otherwise I would never expose myself like that on the Internet.
Qualifying statements like mine as an attack or insults is designed to do nothing more than shut down my experiences and increase the drama. Try reading your own thread and see that many here have explained themselves over and over again even though no one is listening.
I did not have any of your posts in mind when I wrote this. I respect your point of view. Given the manner in which the concept 'bad foods" is understood by some people, I will use different terminology in the future.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.0 -
I find myself regretting using the term "bad food" in my initial post as it seems to have tons of baggage attached to it. But I do have a couple questions for my various attackers attackers and insulters?
I think you are misinterpreting the response.Do you disagree that there are some foods that physiologically cause food cravings to go up for some people?
I probably agree somewhat, although I think it's hard to separate out what's a psychological craving/habit thing (positive associations with the food or using the food for comfort or some such) vs. what's actually physiologically caused by the food, especially since people report the reaction for one food and not another despite the foods being quite similar in ingredients or make-up. I suspect that if you have this reaction to Cheetos it's more about your history with Cheetos or finding them tasty. But it's possible, and I do think overall make-up of the diet can matter and that we tend to crave foods we eat more.
I DON'T think we can generalize about this foods and assert that if you eat carbs you (mean everyone) will crave them or the like, which is commonly done. People have to figure out for themselves how foods affect them (or, how an overall diet affects them), and no one is saying not to. That's what I thought you were misunderstanding in your first post.Do you think blaming people for their so-called 'loss of control' and insisting that the "food" is just fine is helpful to anyone?
I don't see it as blaming. I see it as focusing on things that can be addressed. I am exposed to foods all the time beyond what I seek out myself, so telling myself I don't have self control around a cake isn't a good strategy. And it tends to result in people being more likely to go overboard if they do have a little cake.
I see nothing wrong with eliminating foods if that's a good strategy for you -- I eliminated added sugar for a while before I realized that for me a better strategy was not snacking. I just don't think that makes the foods the problem or means that they are BAD.Self discipline is actually something of a strength of mine. But sometimes I exercise this by avoiding foods that impact me in a way I don't like. I don't see this as a sign of weakness-quite the contrary. Yet there were several times in this discussion where I basically received the message "Cheetos are fine; YOU suck."
I didn't see any posts that seemed to me to be saying that.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions