Don't deprive yourself or you'll never last the distance!
Replies
-
kommodevaran wrote: »We all have to cut somewhere to lose weight. Whether we call or think about it as deprivation or not, can be "just semantics", or "attitude/approach". For me, having a non-deprivation strategy has been crucial to my success. I had to reduce my intake and structure my eating differently. But denying myself pleasure from eating is not going to work - I know that from earlier attempts. Structuring my eating into meals and looking forward to them, has heightened my pleasure, not lowered it. It's funny to read that my strategy is just like Ellyn Satter recommends.
Until recently, my usual eating habits included eating until stuffed. Not really because I liked it, but it was normal for me because that's what I'd always done. Now I eat normal portions (portions appropriate for my height, weight, age, activity) and I feel pleasantly satisfied, but it feels strange. Natural, normal, comfortable, easy, and right, but also unusual and strange and different. I don't know if it's ever going to be/feel ordinary, but I'm okay with that.
I like this post.
Something else you've mentioned in the past is realizing that losing (and maintaining) weight doesn't require special "weight loss" foods -- that one can eat normally and focus on taste and still lose. That you even usually feel more satisfied this way, since the food is more satisfying (and also, I'd suggest, you aren't always telling yourself by what you choose to eat that you are depriving yourself and eating something other than what you want).
Although I didn't change how I ate (other than calories and mindless eating) that much this time, the one other time I lost weight (years ago, maintained for some time until some life events) was much the same. I had never lost weight before and one reason I didn't even after I realized I was gaining is that I had assumed I'd have to eat a depressing diet, feel deprived, be hungry. Diet meals I'd seen (the only green salads thing or those Lean Cuisine diets or the 2 weeks to lose 10 lbs things in magazines) always seemed so depressing, and yet I felt helpless as obviously eating as I was wasn't working.
When I decided to learn about how it worked and sat down to think about my meal choices, I realized that I could easily cut calories and still eat delicious, normal food -- more delicious than I was then, since getting into the habit of cooking more and eating more sensibly was part of this. It was an enormous relief and made losing seem so easy, and when I decided to lose this time it made it easy again, as I knew I didn't have to eat unpleasant meals or feel deprived or hungry. I just had to get back to normal (as Machka said) and stop eating mindlessly and overly indulgently and using food for emotional stuff (which is one of my weaknesses).
Knowing how helpful and what a relief that realization was -- I can still go out to dinner on Fridays, I can still eat food I love, I can eat normally, I don't have to be hungry or eat only vegetables (I love vegetables, but only vegetables, no) or lots of tiny meals, so on! -- I think it's a wonderful message for OP to want to spread.5 -
kportmanshark wrote: »My TDEE is going to be 1900 calories or so. That isn't huge, I'll need to deprive. 400 calories for breakfast, 600 for a healthy lunch, that leaves 900 for dinner and some snacks. Afternoon lull grab 100 calories of almonds, that leaves me with 800 for dinner. That's surprisingly small. Let's say I want to have a beer with dinner and a few bites of desert, right that that's 300 calories - leaving 500 for food. And that's at my goal weight TDEE, not while dieting.
I think being thin is a bit about deprivation. It has to be reasonable, but, it is a bit about deprivation and learning to be hungry sometimes.
I completely agree it is unreasonable to not cheat now and again, but, it is a very different way to live than when I didn't have a care in the world. The benefits of health outweigh the negatives, but it certainly isn't as fun at mealtime.
This is so completely opposite of how I think. I used to think that way, but I have been surprised how little food I actually need at a normal weight, and that "need" means both "necessary to keep current weight stable" AND "enough to feel satisfied".
I think "learning to be hungry sometimes" isn't complete without learning to appreciate the feeling of hunger before meals, and trusting that to be normal and not to be fought against, just temporarily relieved by eating.
Cheating hadn't been mentioned yet in this thread. And the idea of cheating goes against the whole "letting yourself eat whatever you want but in responsible amounts" which is what I understand this thread to be about.
Finally, it's not that I didn't care when I overate. I tried to pretend I didn't care, but I was sick from worry.
Oh, this will be the last thing: I consider the "fun" I had eating primarily junk and too much, as totally inferior to the pleasure I get from eating real food in normal amounts.6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation.
See ... I look at that sort of thing as 'returning to my normal eating habits' ... I had kind of gotten off track and/or gave myself permission to eat a lot more than I normally eat for a little while, and I gained weight. No surprise.
When I started with MFP, I returned to a more normal diet. Basically all the same foods I usually eat, just smaller portions ... portions that don't leave my stomach hurting from too much food.
I agree with this. I looked at it as learning normalcy, and as wanting outsized portions of normal food as out of the norm.
I still indulge in that kind of thing as a planned deviation because there are just some things I want either in quantity or not at all and I'm a volume eater, but I know it's ... not right. I just keep control of my overall calories.
I don't consider my brokenness and how I have to deal with it deprivation. To me, the concept of deprivation carries with it the implicit concept of being entitled to/deserving of/in the state of normally expecting what you're being deprived of.
People of my height/weight/age should not be in the state of normally expecting to consume entire sleeves of sandwich cookies.5 -
kportmanshark wrote: »My TDEE is going to be 1900 calories or so. That isn't huge, I'll need to deprive. 400 calories for breakfast, 600 for a healthy lunch, that leaves 900 for dinner and some snacks. Afternoon lull grab 100 calories of almonds, that leaves me with 800 for dinner. That's surprisingly small. Let's say I want to have a beer with dinner and a few bites of desert, right that that's 300 calories - leaving 500 for food. And that's at my goal weight TDEE, not while dieting.
I think being thin is a bit about deprivation. It has to be reasonable, but, it is a bit about deprivation and learning to be hungry sometimes.
I completely agree it is unreasonable to not cheat now and again, but, it is a very different way to live than when I didn't have a care in the world. The benefits of health outweigh the negatives, but it certainly isn't as fun at mealtime.
This pretty much hits it on the head for me at this point in time if I try to cut calories. It has changed over the past couple of years since I did my big weight loss. At that time, I didn't feel deprived while losing most of the time and when I did, I took a little break. Nowadays I feel deprived no matter my calorie deficit or macro breakdown when I am in a deficit. At my maintenance calories, I am fine.2 -
It would be nice if we'd just automatically feel full at the exact moment our caloric needs have been met.
Yea, I want to eat that 1/2 of a pizza, but I certainly don't need to.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation. To eat at a deficit I must deprive my body of food so that it will use fat stores. What method of deprivation will be successful is highly individualized.
Probably for you deprivation and not going for excess are all the same thing. For me they are different meanings so therefore I get the OP's message (though it's a very narrow point). For me if I deny my enjoyment of 2 pieces based on some weird idea while having this amount doesn't negatively affect my weight, that's deprivation. But not going for 5 pieces which is an excessive amount for my wt isn't deprivation. It's normal, healthy. Deprivation is opposite of healthy. No?1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation.
See ... I look at that sort of thing as 'returning to my normal eating habits' ... I had kind of gotten off track and/or gave myself permission to eat a lot more than I normally eat for a little while, and I gained weight. No surprise.
That's what I did too.
It's more helpful to me to reframe two pieces of pizza or skipping dessert on a particular day or not snacking between meals (as that's the meal pattern that works best for me) as something other than "deprivation." I suppose some could find it beneficial mentally to focus on it being deprivation, however, although I'd bet that's more unusual.
It's interesting, the crux of the entire thread is about how this doesn't have to be a miserable experience, that losing weight can be something other than suffering, maybe even an enjoyable experience. Yet I guess there will always be people in the world with a glass half empty outlook that frame it in the negative rather than trying to focus on the positive aspects of weight loss. The OP was trying to teach people to think "wow, you mean I can still have pizza while I'm losing weight? I don't have to give it up altogether?" But then some focus on how they aren't eating 5 pieces like they used to. Personally I think that reinforces the "weight loss is hard why bother trying" mentality and it's a shame because this thread has been so supportive, encouraging and hopefully eye opening to people who are losing motivation...
I think you're quite negative when you start judging and deciding what's negative, etc. I just see that people are expanding on the OP's topic. It's always good to see more angles. In fact that's how I came up my approach -- by seeing it from 10 different angles and making sure that everything gels and doesn't contradict one another. Everything should work in term of logic, philosophy, biological, etc. That's how I ensure a smooth running engine.
6 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation. To eat at a deficit I must deprive my body of food so that it will use fat stores. What method of deprivation will be successful is highly individualized.
Probably for you deprivation and not going for excess are all the same thing. For me they are different meanings so therefore I get the OP's message (though it's a very narrow point). For me if I deny my enjoyment of 2 pieces based on some weird idea while having this amount doesn't negatively affect my weight, that's deprivation. But not going for 5 pieces which is an excessive amount for my wt isn't deprivation. It's normal, healthy. Deprivation is opposite of healthy. No?
I looked up the definition of "deprivation" just to be sure I answered correctly. Google gave me this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deprivationSimple Definition of deprivation
: the state of not having something that people need : the state of being deprived of something
So to answer your question, long term deprivation of something we need would be unhealthy. Short term may or may not. If we deprive ourselves of something that's not a necessity it would depend on the something.
Not sure why everyone is so hung up on my random pizza example, but pizza is certainly not a necessity nor was I talking about myself.
I feel like I'm in a "I'm not on a diet" thread. I'm not on a diet I'm just eating less to lose weight. Okay then. ::laugh::2 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation.
See ... I look at that sort of thing as 'returning to my normal eating habits' ... I had kind of gotten off track and/or gave myself permission to eat a lot more than I normally eat for a little while, and I gained weight. No surprise.
That's what I did too.
It's more helpful to me to reframe two pieces of pizza or skipping dessert on a particular day or not snacking between meals (as that's the meal pattern that works best for me) as something other than "deprivation." I suppose some could find it beneficial mentally to focus on it being deprivation, however, although I'd bet that's more unusual.
It's interesting, the crux of the entire thread is about how this doesn't have to be a miserable experience, that losing weight can be something other than suffering, maybe even an enjoyable experience. Yet I guess there will always be people in the world with a glass half empty outlook that frame it in the negative rather than trying to focus on the positive aspects of weight loss. The OP was trying to teach people to think "wow, you mean I can still have pizza while I'm losing weight? I don't have to give it up altogether?" But then some focus on how they aren't eating 5 pieces like they used to. Personally I think that reinforces the "weight loss is hard why bother trying" mentality and it's a shame because this thread has been so supportive, encouraging and hopefully eye opening to people who are losing motivation...
I think you're quite negative when you start judging and deciding what's negative, etc. I just see that people are expanding on the OP's topic. It's always good to see more angles. In fact that's how I came up my approach -- by seeing it from 10 different angles and making sure that everything gels and doesn't contradict one another. Everything should work in term of logic, philosophy, biological, etc. That's how I ensure a smooth running engine.
So she says that people should focus on the positive side of things and you think that's being negative?6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation.
See ... I look at that sort of thing as 'returning to my normal eating habits' ... I had kind of gotten off track and/or gave myself permission to eat a lot more than I normally eat for a little while, and I gained weight. No surprise.
That's what I did too.
It's more helpful to me to reframe two pieces of pizza or skipping dessert on a particular day or not snacking between meals (as that's the meal pattern that works best for me) as something other than "deprivation." I suppose some could find it beneficial mentally to focus on it being deprivation, however, although I'd bet that's more unusual.
It's interesting, the crux of the entire thread is about how this doesn't have to be a miserable experience, that losing weight can be something other than suffering, maybe even an enjoyable experience. Yet I guess there will always be people in the world with a glass half empty outlook that frame it in the negative rather than trying to focus on the positive aspects of weight loss. The OP was trying to teach people to think "wow, you mean I can still have pizza while I'm losing weight? I don't have to give it up altogether?" But then some focus on how they aren't eating 5 pieces like they used to. Personally I think that reinforces the "weight loss is hard why bother trying" mentality and it's a shame because this thread has been so supportive, encouraging and hopefully eye opening to people who are losing motivation...
I think you're quite negative when you start judging and deciding what's negative, etc. I just see that people are expanding on the OP's topic. It's always good to see more angles. In fact that's how I came up my approach -- by seeing it from 10 different angles and making sure that everything gels and doesn't contradict one another. Everything should work in term of logic, philosophy, biological, etc. That's how I ensure a smooth running engine.
So she says that people should focus on the positive side of things and you think that's being negative?
And she does that by first thinking negatively of some of the posts.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation. To eat at a deficit I must deprive my body of food so that it will use fat stores. What method of deprivation will be successful is highly individualized.
Probably for you deprivation and not going for excess are all the same thing. For me they are different meanings so therefore I get the OP's message (though it's a very narrow point). For me if I deny my enjoyment of 2 pieces based on some weird idea while having this amount doesn't negatively affect my weight, that's deprivation. But not going for 5 pieces which is an excessive amount for my wt isn't deprivation. It's normal, healthy. Deprivation is opposite of healthy. No?
I looked up the definition of "deprivation" just to be sure I answered correctly. Google gave me this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deprivationSimple Definition of deprivation
: the state of not having something that people need : the state of being deprived of something
So to answer your question, long term deprivation of something we need would be unhealthy. Short term may or may not. If we deprive ourselves of something that's not a necessity it would depend on the something.
Not sure why everyone is so hung up on my random pizza example, but pizza is certainly not a necessity nor was I talking about myself.
I feel like I'm in a "I'm not on a diet" thread. I'm not on a diet I'm just eating less to lose weight. Okay then. ::laugh::
If anything, that definition that you pull up only confirms my point. Not having 5 pieces of pizza, an excess and is not something you *need*, is not depriving yourself. Now, not having any pizza at all -- on the premise that having two pieces doesn't affect your wt and in fact what you need per your culinary tradition, social need -- would meet the definition of deprivation.
I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm only talking to you on an idea. Pizza is a decent example to use in this case but you can sub it for any food. Pizza or a specific food may not be a necessity to a person but it is to some people. There are plenty of dishes that are necessity to me, per my upbringing, lifestyle.1 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation. To eat at a deficit I must deprive my body of food so that it will use fat stores. What method of deprivation will be successful is highly individualized.
Probably for you deprivation and not going for excess are all the same thing. For me they are different meanings so therefore I get the OP's message (though it's a very narrow point). For me if I deny my enjoyment of 2 pieces based on some weird idea while having this amount doesn't negatively affect my weight, that's deprivation. But not going for 5 pieces which is an excessive amount for my wt isn't deprivation. It's normal, healthy. Deprivation is opposite of healthy. No?
I looked up the definition of "deprivation" just to be sure I answered correctly. Google gave me this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deprivationSimple Definition of deprivation
: the state of not having something that people need : the state of being deprived of something
So to answer your question, long term deprivation of something we need would be unhealthy. Short term may or may not. If we deprive ourselves of something that's not a necessity it would depend on the something.
Not sure why everyone is so hung up on my random pizza example, but pizza is certainly not a necessity nor was I talking about myself.
I feel like I'm in a "I'm not on a diet" thread. I'm not on a diet I'm just eating less to lose weight. Okay then. ::laugh::
If anything, that definition that you pull up only confirms my point. Not having 5 pieces of pizza, an excess and is not something you *need*, is not depriving yourself. Now, not having any pizza at all -- on the premise that having two pieces doesn't affect your wt and in fact what you need per your culinary tradition, social need -- would meet the definition of deprivation.
I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm only talking to you on an idea. Pizza is a decent example to use in this case but you can sub it for any food. Pizza or a specific food may not be a necessity to a person but it is to some people. There are plenty of dishes that are necessity to me, per my upbringing, lifestyle.
Even while thinking it's complete baloney I love the bolded phrase so much I'll concede the point. Social need.
0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation.
See ... I look at that sort of thing as 'returning to my normal eating habits' ... I had kind of gotten off track and/or gave myself permission to eat a lot more than I normally eat for a little while, and I gained weight. No surprise.
That's what I did too.
It's more helpful to me to reframe two pieces of pizza or skipping dessert on a particular day or not snacking between meals (as that's the meal pattern that works best for me) as something other than "deprivation." I suppose some could find it beneficial mentally to focus on it being deprivation, however, although I'd bet that's more unusual.
It's interesting, the crux of the entire thread is about how this doesn't have to be a miserable experience, that losing weight can be something other than suffering, maybe even an enjoyable experience. Yet I guess there will always be people in the world with a glass half empty outlook that frame it in the negative rather than trying to focus on the positive aspects of weight loss. The OP was trying to teach people to think "wow, you mean I can still have pizza while I'm losing weight? I don't have to give it up altogether?" But then some focus on how they aren't eating 5 pieces like they used to. Personally I think that reinforces the "weight loss is hard why bother trying" mentality and it's a shame because this thread has been so supportive, encouraging and hopefully eye opening to people who are losing motivation...
I think you're quite negative when you start judging and deciding what's negative, etc. I just see that people are expanding on the OP's topic. It's always good to see more angles. In fact that's how I came up my approach -- by seeing it from 10 different angles and making sure that everything gels and doesn't contradict one another. Everything should work in term of logic, philosophy, biological, etc. That's how I ensure a smooth running engine.
So she says that people should focus on the positive side of things and you think that's being negative?
And she does that by first thinking negatively of some of the posts.
...where people are talking about food in a negative way. <confused>1 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »It would be nice if we'd just automatically feel full at the exact moment our caloric needs have been met.
Yea, I want to eat that 1/2 of a pizza, but I certainly don't need to.
Infants are really good at auto regulating their caloric intake and some people are still in touch with their true caloric needs as they get older it seems, but for the most part we still have the ability to auto regulate but we need to learn to listen to internal cues but adults tend to favour environmental cues, such as the availability of food, over internal cue such as leptin release.
6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation. To eat at a deficit I must deprive my body of food so that it will use fat stores. What method of deprivation will be successful is highly individualized.
Probably for you deprivation and not going for excess are all the same thing. For me they are different meanings so therefore I get the OP's message (though it's a very narrow point). For me if I deny my enjoyment of 2 pieces based on some weird idea while having this amount doesn't negatively affect my weight, that's deprivation. But not going for 5 pieces which is an excessive amount for my wt isn't deprivation. It's normal, healthy. Deprivation is opposite of healthy. No?
I looked up the definition of "deprivation" just to be sure I answered correctly. Google gave me this:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deprivationSimple Definition of deprivation
: the state of not having something that people need : the state of being deprived of something
So to answer your question, long term deprivation of something we need would be unhealthy. Short term may or may not. If we deprive ourselves of something that's not a necessity it would depend on the something.
Not sure why everyone is so hung up on my random pizza example, but pizza is certainly not a necessity nor was I talking about myself.
I feel like I'm in a "I'm not on a diet" thread. I'm not on a diet I'm just eating less to lose weight. Okay then. ::laugh::
If anything, that definition that you pull up only confirms my point. Not having 5 pieces of pizza, an excess and is not something you *need*, is not depriving yourself. Now, not having any pizza at all -- on the premise that having two pieces doesn't affect your wt and in fact what you need per your culinary tradition, social need -- would meet the definition of deprivation.
I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm only talking to you on an idea. Pizza is a decent example to use in this case but you can sub it for any food. Pizza or a specific food may not be a necessity to a person but it is to some people. There are plenty of dishes that are necessity to me, per my upbringing, lifestyle.
Even while thinking it's complete baloney I love the bolded phrase so much I'll concede the point. Social need.
I'm not one to corner people or have to have the last words but I'm amazed that you don't have the concept that there are foods that people have a need for. Turkey on Thanksgiving maybe? My friends and I have to have pizza and beer every few weeks after our sport session. Cheers. 1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If I don't deprive myself I won't lose weight. Whether it's eating 2 pieces of pizza when I want 5, or not eating pizza at all, it's all deprivation.
See ... I look at that sort of thing as 'returning to my normal eating habits' ... I had kind of gotten off track and/or gave myself permission to eat a lot more than I normally eat for a little while, and I gained weight. No surprise.
That's what I did too.
It's more helpful to me to reframe two pieces of pizza or skipping dessert on a particular day or not snacking between meals (as that's the meal pattern that works best for me) as something other than "deprivation." I suppose some could find it beneficial mentally to focus on it being deprivation, however, although I'd bet that's more unusual.
It's interesting, the crux of the entire thread is about how this doesn't have to be a miserable experience, that losing weight can be something other than suffering, maybe even an enjoyable experience. Yet I guess there will always be people in the world with a glass half empty outlook that frame it in the negative rather than trying to focus on the positive aspects of weight loss. The OP was trying to teach people to think "wow, you mean I can still have pizza while I'm losing weight? I don't have to give it up altogether?" But then some focus on how they aren't eating 5 pieces like they used to. Personally I think that reinforces the "weight loss is hard why bother trying" mentality and it's a shame because this thread has been so supportive, encouraging and hopefully eye opening to people who are losing motivation...
I think you're quite negative when you start judging and deciding what's negative, etc. I just see that people are expanding on the OP's topic. It's always good to see more angles. In fact that's how I came up my approach -- by seeing it from 10 different angles and making sure that everything gels and doesn't contradict one another. Everything should work in term of logic, philosophy, biological, etc. That's how I ensure a smooth running engine.
So she says that people should focus on the positive side of things and you think that's being negative?
And she does that by first thinking negatively of some of the posts.
...where people are talking about food in a negative way. <confused>
I'm definitely confused. I feel a bit like:
2 -
Regarding feeling/being deprived ...
Merriam Webster defines it as "not having the things that are needed for a good or healthy life"
Cambridge defines is as "not having the things that are necessary for a pleasant life, such as enough money, food, or good living conditions"
For me ...
1) It's not a good idea to deprive myself of nutrients ("the things that are needed for a good or healthy life") ... especially not with the amount of exercise I do. To avoid depriving myself, I eat a varied diet which includes items from each of the food groups. I also take vitamins and minerals. I refuse to cut out food groups (i.e. no dairy, no grains, no meat, etc.) ... that just does not work for me. I want/need the freedom to be able to eat whatever I feel I need to eat to fuel what I do.
2) Mentally and motivationally, I am also not willing to deprive myself of "the things that are necessary for a pleasant life".
Within the first couple months of joining MFP, I had two out of state visitors who met my husband and me for dinner in restaurants. I also had my birthday long weekend and Easter. It seems to me there were a couple other events as well.
I was not about to pick my way through lettuce leaves for all those events while everyone else enjoyed delicious meals!
So, each time, I did some extra exercise (which I love doing anyway) in order to be able to eat a delicious meal too, and remain within my calories.
It is a bit of a balancing act ... if I want to be able to eat a whole pizza once a month (and I did all the way through my weight loss process), and a large Mexican dinner + half a cheesecake on my birthday long weekend, and pasta followed by a bowl of chocolate mousse when going out with friends, etc. etc. etc. ........ I needed to work for each one of those meals by going out and doing a long hike or long bicycle ride.
For me, that's how it works. I get to eat a variety of food including special stuff a couple times a month AND in order to do so, I get to exercise lots. Or another way to look at it ... I get to exercise lots AND in order to ensure I'm getting enough fuel for that, I also get to eat a variety of food including special stuff a couple times a month!! 
Win-Win.5 -
I love the OP's point.
Managing one's weight doesn't require eating only tiny bland meals, avoiding all social situations, or having to classify "good" and "bad" foods. You can pick any way of achieving a deficit that fits your personal nutritional goals, your social and work lifestyle, and your preferences. It will work with only effort, consistency, and time.
Sadly, so many people have been "programmed" by the diet industry to believe it cannot be that straightforward. When confronted with this idea they almost always feel the need to argue against it, try expensive restrictive plans, and achieve only an endless fail.
18 -
My take on it - for most people, simple calorie counting, without necessarily changing what they eat, just how much, will work just fine. And it can avoid the whole "forbidden fruit" phenomenon that some people seem to experience (apparently some people feel it necessary to rebel against themselves if they tell themselves they can't have certain foods). And honestly that approach worked for me in my teens and early twenties. As I got older I found it necessary to focus not just on the overall amount of food, but the "what" as well as the "how much".
I fought against that, no doubt (who doesn't hate the idea of giving up certain foods?). But in the fighting it, I found that I was struggling, spinning my wheels, feeling deprived with the paltry amounts that I could work in, feeling hungry much of the time, and then over consuming due to that deprivation and chronic hunger. When I finally accepted that, no, I can't eat some things (at least not with any regularity), and just stopped eating those foods, it all clicked into place. Instead of trying to work in unsatisfying amounts of certain foods (because the gurus all say "everything in moderation"), I found certain foods were self limiting. Meaning I could indulge in those items to my heart's content - certain foods are so filling and satisfying to me that I simply cannot over eat them. Maybe it's a Jedi mind trick, but the idea that I can have "as much as I want" of some foods, even if I have to eliminate others, is soooo comforting. I never need to go hungry again! That's worth having to pass on some of the foods that I used to enjoy. I also don't need to count calories or log so long as I stick to those basic "reckless abandon foods".
I lost 50lbs by "depriving" myself, and have happily kept it off for three years.6 -
I think deprivation has to be defined as pshysiological and mental - like Machka9 (and others) points out. Eating less than your body needs to maintain weight, but not so little that you starve (somewhere between BMR and TDEE), and sufficient of all macro and micro nutrients, is obviously not pshysiological deprivation. For me, that was easy. It was also easy to "give up" things like regular overeating (I didn't enjoy being uncomfortably stuffed, it was just a bad habit that started in childhood), compulsive eating, mindless eating, worry, defeat, feeling of never getting enough. Instead I got heightened enjoyment of food, and joy of home cooking, even shopping has become fun. I think that some people just insist on this having to be hard (they are brainwashed by the diet industry), or they can't find, or don't look for, or haven't yet found, something that is easy for them to give up.
I have had the same experience as tlflag1620 (but I think I think about it a bit differently) - the zen of "as much as I want" adjusting to what I actually need, is amazing. Most foods are actually foods I can eat to satiety. Some foods are not, but they are quite few, and not essential to good health. When I realized that some foods just trigger overeating, I could accept that. For me, "moderation" is having those foods on rare occasions, in the physical and social situations I can control myself.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions