Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Forbidden vs not wanting
Options
Replies
-
Everybody I know who has "forbidden" a particular food because it is a trigger food or because it simply is not conducive to reaching their current goals ends up not wanting it at all.
People who choose to eat smaller amounts and weigh them and feel less than satisfied with their modified portions don't seem satisfied to me...
I think of it like quitting smoking. why yes I could smoke 3 cigarettes a day and probably be less unhealthy but always want more...but why? When I can just give them up and never think of them again?
This argument always runs off the rails when the people who eat modified portions assume that their method MUST work for everyone. It just doesn't. You'll also notice that people who give up their trigger foods aren't trying to shove their method down anybody's throat.
I have given up alcohol, pop, and black tea with milk and sugar. The honest truth is that through avoiding these things I DON'T WANT THEM ANYMORE. Why is that so impossible to understand.5 -
Does this simple change in semantics & mindset make a difference? You see so many people spouting that nothing is forbidden & no foods should be excluded. What if you simply choose not to eat something any longer because you just don't want to? Does the reason matter?
To me, "forbid" and "not want" are entirely different things, and the dictionary would agree with me. If you forbid something, you're saying that you are not allowed to have it or that it is banned. If you do not want something, you're saying you don't desire to have it.
Some people find it helpful to ban certain food items or groups - fine, have at it.
Some people find it helpful to never ban any food item or group - fine, have at it.
Whatever works. No one should be saying one way or the other is the only way to do anything. That's what generally causes commotions on these forums from what I've seen. Someone comes in and says to never eat something, which causes others to jump in and say it's not necessary to ban anything. Both are viable options for people, and the choice is a very personal one. It's going to depend on a variety of factors, all very individual.
Personally, I've never forbidden a food, but there are plenty of foods I do not want most of the time either because they don't support how I want to eat or because they aren't worth the calories to me. There are foods that I love that I have a tendency to overeat if they are in my house, so I don't buy them often. However, I'm working on that and will buy them every once in a while to exercise my self-control and see how much further I have to go before I can incorporate them into my regular eating patterns. This approach works for me, and may work for others, but others may find that simply eliminating the problem foods altogether works for them. Great! As I said, whatever works. I never really understand the hoopla around these conversations.2 -
kommodevaran wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »It's simply a matter of personality and the way you think. I have zero problems with a simplistic good/bad, right/wrong sort of thinking. It's just shorthand. A way to go from A straight to Z without all of the steps in between.
Know yourself and go from there.
I have a problem with this black&white thinking, but that's just because I want everybody to be happy
As long as good/bad is working for them, I don't care. But we often see in here that people aren't happy with the approach they have chosen, but are still reluctant to try something else. But then again, many people get pleasure from the feeling of sacrifice and pain, and of talking about how much they struggle and suffer, so yeah, personality and mindset is everything.
This post here is one where you are quietly mocking those who choose to abstain from certain foods. Assuming that we are unhappy, sacrificing, in pain, getting pleasure from whining about it...has it ever occurred to you that for some of us simply leaving these things behind and not thinking about them is simply easier? yes, you see threads where people try to avoid forbidden foods and then binge, but I see just as many stories about binges that start out as "I was just going to have one..."5 -
To lose weight you must eat less than you have previously. Isn't that true for all? You have to restrict something. Portions and/or specific foods. There is commonality with both forbidding and moderating.3
-
eveandqsmom wrote: »Everybody I know who has "forbidden" a particular food because it is a trigger food or because it simply is not conducive to reaching their current goals ends up not wanting it at all.
People who choose to eat smaller amounts and weigh them and feel less than satisfied with their modified portions don't seem satisfied to me...
I think of it like quitting smoking. why yes I could smoke 3 cigarettes a day and probably be less unhealthy but always want more...but why? When I can just give them up and never think of them again?
This argument always runs off the rails when the people who eat modified portions assume that their method MUST work for everyone. It just doesn't. You'll also notice that people who give up their trigger foods aren't trying to shove their method down anybody's throat.
I have given up alcohol, pop, and black tea with milk and sugar. The honest truth is that through avoiding these things I DON'T WANT THEM ANYMORE. Why is that so impossible to understand.
I have a friend who gives up something for Lent every year and never goes back to it. She's cut out specific sweets and gone vegetarian because of Lent, she likes her new eating choices, and she doesn't miss her old foods at all.
I used to give up soda for Lent every year, and when Lent ended I practically bathed in soda instead of going back to my one-per-day. While I do understand that some people just lose interest in things if they abstain from them long enough, I am not one of those people when it comes to things I really, really enjoy, and it's difficult to grasp that someone could give up something they love (not just kinda sorta like, but LOVE) and lose all desire for it.
I've had plenty of experiences where I stop consuming things I'm not all that attached to (I stopped eating cheap candy when I started losing weight and have no desire for it now) or where my tastes change over time (I used to enjoy Kraft Mac and Cheese a lot in college, but as I've developed a more discerning palate I don't find it enjoyable enough to spend my calories on). But those situations are not the same as intentionally giving up my favorite foods, and my behavior is not the same.0 -
mskessler89 wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Everybody I know who has "forbidden" a particular food because it is a trigger food or because it simply is not conducive to reaching their current goals ends up not wanting it at all.
People who choose to eat smaller amounts and weigh them and feel less than satisfied with their modified portions don't seem satisfied to me...
I think of it like quitting smoking. why yes I could smoke 3 cigarettes a day and probably be less unhealthy but always want more...but why? When I can just give them up and never think of them again?
This argument always runs off the rails when the people who eat modified portions assume that their method MUST work for everyone. It just doesn't. You'll also notice that people who give up their trigger foods aren't trying to shove their method down anybody's throat.
I have given up alcohol, pop, and black tea with milk and sugar. The honest truth is that through avoiding these things I DON'T WANT THEM ANYMORE. Why is that so impossible to understand.
I have a friend who gives up something for Lent every year and never goes back to it. She's cut out specific sweets and gone vegetarian because of Lent, she likes her new eating choices, and she doesn't miss her old foods at all.
I used to give up soda for Lent every year, and when Lent ended I practically bathed in soda instead of going back to my one-per-day. While I do understand that some people just lose interest in things if they abstain from them long enough, I am not one of those people when it comes to things I really, really enjoy, and it's difficult to grasp that someone could give up something they love (not just kinda sorta like, but LOVE) and lose all desire for it.
I've had plenty of experiences where I stop consuming things I'm not all that attached to (I stopped eating cheap candy when I started losing weight and have no desire for it now) or where my tastes change over time (I used to enjoy Kraft Mac and Cheese a lot in college, but as I've developed a more discerning palate I don't find it enjoyable enough to spend my calories on). But those situations are not the same as intentionally giving up my favorite foods, and my behavior is not the same.
Wine, tea, and pop were my favourite things. Come to think of it, I've banned chocolate chip cookies too. It is the same. I banned them. Took them off the available list, and never looked back.
I understand it that it doesn't work the same for everyone, I'm just asking why people find it necessary to constantly tell us that it doesn't work and that we can't possibly be happy.1 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »It's simply a matter of personality and the way you think. I have zero problems with a simplistic good/bad, right/wrong sort of thinking. It's just shorthand. A way to go from A straight to Z without all of the steps in between.
Know yourself and go from there.
it's sort of funny but I am very black and white....about everything in my life...except food.
I think it's because as I get older I get that grey is more common for me...people change...I mean I've even accepted that some people have to have that list of "forbidden foods" for their own sanity...it doesn't work for me but if it works for them great.Didn't we already have a better version of this debate?
Yes we did...
1 -
To lose weight you must eat less than you have previously. Isn't that true for all? You have to restrict something. Portions and/or specific foods. There is commonality with both forbidding and moderating.
It's not true for all. For some people a deficit may be created by upping activity without changing diet.1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »It's simply a matter of personality and the way you think. I have zero problems with a simplistic good/bad, right/wrong sort of thinking. It's just shorthand. A way to go from A straight to Z without all of the steps in between.
Know yourself and go from there.
I have a problem with this black&white thinking, but that's just because I want everybody to be happy
As long as good/bad is working for them, I don't care. But we often see in here that people aren't happy with the approach they have chosen, but are still reluctant to try something else. But then again, many people get pleasure from the feeling of sacrifice and pain, and of talking about how much they struggle and suffer, so yeah, personality and mindset is everything.
This post here is one where you are quietly mocking those who choose to abstain from certain foods. Assuming that we are unhappy, sacrificing, in pain, getting pleasure from whining about it...has it ever occurred to you that for some of us simply leaving these things behind and not thinking about them is simply easier? yes, you see threads where people try to avoid forbidden foods and then binge, but I see just as many stories about binges that start out as "I was just going to have one..."
Oh really? I said "as long as it's working for them". Leaving behind is not forbidding. I've left behind quite a lot myself, that only gets me in trouble, because it's easier. So I don't eat ice cream every day, but I don't whine about it "oooh, I love ice cream, but I can't have it, pooor me, sniff sniff". NOW, I mocked, loudly. But it's still a fact. Some people do this.0 -
3 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »I think forbidding something often leads to not wanting it eventually.
This.0 -
Does this simple change in semantics & mindset make a difference? You see so many people spouting that nothing is forbidden & no foods should be excluded. What if you simply choose not to eat something any longer because you just don't want to? Does the reason matter?
This isn't semantics.
Forbidden means - I can't eat it, whether I want to or not.
I don't want it means - I don't want it.
If now that you've lost some weight, you realize you never really liked those jelly beans you used to eat mindlessly while you watched TV every night, so you stopped buying them, go you!
If you love jelly beans, but you forbid them on your diet because you think you have to in order to lose weight, I personally think you are setting yourself up for failure.
But that isn't a simple change in semantics, that's different words meaning different things.1 -
No.
It is your body, your health, your choices.
Whatever works for you is the right thing to eat or not eat.
There is no wrong or right way, only the way that works.2 -
1. Forbidden foods = foods I want but am denying myself = causes lots of effort and misery on my part.
2. Not wanting foods= foods I don't want= no effort at all to avoid, easy.
Two different things, imo.
This comes into play when people say they are miserable because of #1. It has nothing at all to do with #2.You see so many people spouting that nothing is forbidden & no foods should be excluded.
5 -
Alluminati wrote: »1. Forbidden foods = foods I want but am denying myself = causes lots of effort and misery on my part.
2. Not wanting foods= foods I don't want= no effort at all to avoid, easy.
Two different things, imo.
This comes into play when people say they are miserable because of #1. It has nothing at all to do with #2.You see so many people spouting that nothing is forbidden & no foods should be excluded.
All of this.0 -
Alluminati wrote: »1. Forbidden foods = foods I want but am denying myself = causes lots of effort and misery on my part.
2. Not wanting foods= foods I don't want= no effort at all to avoid, easy.
Two different things, imo.
This comes into play when people are miserable because of #1. It has nothing at all to do with #2.You see so many people spouting that nothing is forbidden & no foods should be excluded.
The thing is though that #1 isn't always true. It's possible to deny yourself foods that you want and not be miserable. You can be happy that you skipped them when you buy smaller clothes, when you look in the mirror, when you stick to your goals. You can be happy that you took control of your diet.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »1. Forbidden foods = foods I want but am denying myself = causes lots of effort and misery on my part.
2. Not wanting foods= foods I don't want= no effort at all to avoid, easy.
Two different things, imo.
This comes into play when people are miserable because of #1. It has nothing at all to do with #2.You see so many people spouting that nothing is forbidden & no foods should be excluded.
The thing is though that #1 isn't always true. It's possible to deny yourself foods that you want and not be miserable. You can be happy that you skipped them when you buy smaller clothes, when you look in the mirror, when you stick to your goals. You can be happy that you took control of your diet.
I'm just happy my fingers aren't orange. 1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »1. Forbidden foods = foods I want but am denying myself = causes lots of effort and misery on my part.
2. Not wanting foods= foods I don't want= no effort at all to avoid, easy.
Two different things, imo.
This comes into play when people are miserable because of #1. It has nothing at all to do with #2.You see so many people spouting that nothing is forbidden & no foods should be excluded.
The thing is though that #1 isn't always true. It's possible to deny yourself foods that you want and not be miserable. You can be happy that you skipped them when you buy smaller clothes, when you look in the mirror, when you stick to your goals. You can be happy that you took control of your diet.
You're right, not always. But those people you speak of aren't the same people starting the threads where people say what I quoted above from the original OP.1 -
Alluminati wrote: »1. Forbidden foods = foods I want but am denying myself = causes lots of effort and misery on my part.
2. Not wanting foods= foods I don't want= no effort at all to avoid, easy.
Two different things, imo.
This comes into play when people say they are miserable because of #1. It has nothing at all to do with #2.You see so many people spouting that nothing is forbidden & no foods should be excluded.
But what I'm saying that many don't seem to be able to either understand or believe is that one can lead to the other.
I haven't decided that Starbucks chocolate chunk cookies aren't the most delicious cookies in the world or that I never liked them. I just realized that I can live a happy and complete life without them...happier and MORE complete in fact.
...just like cigarettes.2 -
They're two completely different things to me.
Something that I don't want is simply something I don't want. Like liver. Don't really want that. Or just simply something I'm not in the mood for.
Forbidden means disallowing myself something that I ALWAYS want, eg. nachos. ... nachos....... because I will go crazy on nachos. They only come into the house at times that my willpower is strong.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions