Don't deprive yourself or you'll never last the distance!

Need2Exerc1se

tlflag1620 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

tlflag1620 wrote: »

Francl27 wrote: »

tlflag1620 wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

That moment when self control and deliberate eating amounts to deprivation.

so in now...esp because of this post.

I know right? Cutting out cookies, soda pop, and pizza is now "deprivation". Lolz. 'Merica!

Obviously they're not something anyone can't leave without, but we're talking about finding something sustainable for everyone... I might not NEED cookies but if I lived somewhere where you can't have them, you bet that I'd end up missing them. So yeah, for me not eating them would probably lead to deprivation (and that's when I'd end up binging).

Couldn't care less about soda though and I'm now extremely picky about my pizza.

Deprivation is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think Carlos is right in his assessment - self control and deliberate eating (whether that comes in the form of eliminating certain foods or just limiting calories overall) is not really "deprivation" in the truest sense (you aren't being deprived of anything necessary for life). Now, *feeling* deprived is totally subjective. You would feel deprived if you went long enough without cookies, so much so you would end up binging, but working some in, even if it is a small portion, and even if it crowds out other more filling foods, keeps you from feeling deprived. I'm just the opposite - I would feel deprived with the one or two cookies I might be able to work in, especially when they edge out other more satiating foods and leave me hungry, but if I don't have them at all, I'm perfectly fine and don't miss them. Different strokes.

But his point still stands - calling going without excess "deprivation" is silly. Going without excess is just normal. The excess is what causes the need for "deprivation" in the first place. If we would have just ate what we needed, and no more, all along, there would be no need to "deprive".

Going without excess isn't what's needed for fat loss. We must go without enough to maintain before fat stores will be used. We must deprive our bodies of food fuel.

True. I guess my point was, if we hadn't been overindulging (excess), we wouldn't need to deprive. In terms of the "long haul" (what the OP was about), no, deprivation isn't necessary, so long as you never went to excess in the first place. Deprivation in the context of weight loss is simply paying the piper, so to speak. Overeating, getting fat, then whining about "deprivation" (when it's time to pay the piper and lose the weight), is a first world problem. That said, we do all have to 'pick our deprivation' and decide what is easier for us to go without.

Agreed, I said something similar earlier in the thread.

tlflag1620

lemurcat12 wrote: »

If you see it that way, that's cool, and I'm glad it works for you. It seems to me, though, that most doing LCHF (or other LC variants) choose it because it is a way they enjoy eating (lots and lots of talk about how they can eat all these foods that were typically assumed to be barred on a diet) and make a point of eating normal, enjoyable meals they would happily eat when not trying to lose. I often think that whether LCHF appeals has to do with just what kind of diet one finds enjoyable. Just as I would do well from a satiety standpoint on low fat, but don't do it, since that would feel like deprivation to me (although I could make it work if I needed to). But others love low fat or prefer no meat (even without ethical issues) or things like that. Finding a diet that fits with weight loss goals and is enjoyable may indeed require changing it up some (I suspect many of us change our diet over the course of our lives, after all -- my preferences are different now than when I was 21), but the point is that that does not mean that one must feel deprived, that a "diet" diet is sad and unappealing compared to the alternatives. If one has strong preferences in how one eats, one can usually build around that (of course there are limits, I suppose, although this was quite easy for me).

I used deprivation in quote mainly because I feel anything other than deprived, lol. Though I can see how others might think I'm "depriving" myself. Heck, back in my "a calorie is a calorie" days, when I tried to eat a "balanced" diet with "everything in moderation" I would have agreed with them! And don't get me wrong, even that evolved over time - I switched from regular soda to water or unsweetened tea, then I cut back on the typical "junk foods", later I cut back on take out/fast food/restaraunt food, then I focused on getting more fruit and veg, switched to whole grains, switched to low fat or fat free dairy and started eating leaner cuts of meat. All the standard advice, still working in occasional treats (wouldn't want to feel "deprived" lol), but I felt hungry much of the time, my willpower was shot from chronic overuse, and I'd fall down over and over and over. Then I'd feel guilty, and worthless, and like there must be something wrong with me (because I was doing all those sensible, proper things - no "fad" diets here! - and still couldn't manage to be anything but decidedly fat).

I was skeptical when I tried LCHF. I gave myself a six week trial period to see how I liked it. I wasn't sure whether or not it would. The food sounded good, but I was scared sh1tless of giving up bread and potatoes and fruit. I was afraid my already beaten down willpower (which I thought I was lacking in in the first place, as evidenced by my utter inability to follow a "sensible, moderate, balanced diet") wouldn't allow me to give those things up. What I experienced was astounding to me - as I systematically changed what I was eating (started with breakfast, did that for a few days, then changed up lunch, etc) I found that I didn't need willpower just to get through the day anymore. I was so full of eggs, butter, bacon, and heavy cream that I didn't miss the foods that I was so sure I would long for.

I look at willpower like a muscle now. Yes, you need to work it to make it stronger, but just as important as a good workout is adequate rest and recovery time. That's what I was lacking on my "sensible, balanced diet". I never got to relax and just eat; I was constantly fighting hunger and cravings and so my willpower muscle was fatigued and torn down and never got really strong. Now that I'm eating in a way that leaves me full and satisfied and free from cravings and hunger, my willpower has a chance to rest, so when I do really need it, it doesn't fail. On those rare occasions when I do have something off plan, I can now trust myself to stop at a reasonable amount and get right back on track without going into a downward spiral.

Anywho, tldr - I was scared off of trying LCHF for over two decades because "ZOMG don't deprive yourself!!" thinking. Turns out all that "deprivation" left me stronger and with more willpower left for those times when there is true temptation. Of course, everyone is different, I just wish I hadn't been scared off of some "crazy fad diet" for as long as I was

lemurcat12

tlflag1620 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

If you see it that way, that's cool, and I'm glad it works for you. It seems to me, though, that most doing LCHF (or other LC variants) choose it because it is a way they enjoy eating (lots and lots of talk about how they can eat all these foods that were typically assumed to be barred on a diet) and make a point of eating normal, enjoyable meals they would happily eat when not trying to lose. I often think that whether LCHF appeals has to do with just what kind of diet one finds enjoyable. Just as I would do well from a satiety standpoint on low fat, but don't do it, since that would feel like deprivation to me (although I could make it work if I needed to). But others love low fat or prefer no meat (even without ethical issues) or things like that. Finding a diet that fits with weight loss goals and is enjoyable may indeed require changing it up some (I suspect many of us change our diet over the course of our lives, after all -- my preferences are different now than when I was 21), but the point is that that does not mean that one must feel deprived, that a "diet" diet is sad and unappealing compared to the alternatives. If one has strong preferences in how one eats, one can usually build around that (of course there are limits, I suppose, although this was quite easy for me).

I used deprivation in quote mainly because I feel anything other than deprived, lol.

That's what I figured. One frustrating thing about how this kind of conversation tends to go is that someone (like OP) says "don't deprive yourself" -- meaning don't feel you have to do a diet that makes you miserable or leaves you feeling hungry or like you can't enjoy food anymore. For the person saying that, that might mean "you don't have to cut way down on carbs" or "you can eat cookies sometimes." But that's not the point -- the point is you can make food a pleasure still while losing.

But unfortunately some focus on what OP might consider a deprivation and take it personally -- are you calling my diet a deprivation!? My thought is no, if you don't consider it such, it's not. For example, while LCHF types tend to get offended (without cause, IMO) when someone says they would consider giving up pasta or cookies sad, they often say the same thing about giving up bacon. Personally, I rarely eat bacon because it's usually not filling for me or worth the calories (I know there is lower cal bacon than that I buy, granted) and doesn't fit as easily in my macros as other foods I enjoy for breakfast. But that's not a deprivation (I just don't care that much about bacon, heresy, I know) -- if I thought it was, I'd fit it in.

What bothers me is we then get snide posts saying "so and so thinks not eating a cookie is a deprivation!"--as if that made that person less health conscious or serious or in good taste than someone who didn't think cookies were worth the calories or macros or whatever. The fact is people have different preferences and feeling that you'd rather have a diet with occasional cookies is no more childish or weak than thinking you don't want to give up bacon or meat or bananas or whatever it is. The issue is that if something seems like a deprivation to you, there's no need for you -- you can lose weight (and be healthy) on a diet you enjoy (well, except for some people who seem to have an unusual amount of food aversions, where there might be issues, but even they can lose weight eating a diet they enjoy).

Though I can see how others might think I'm "depriving" myself.

For the record, I don't, and I don't assume anyone else does. Many new posters do seem to think they have to eat a diet without enjoyment to lose. I don't think that's the case with longterm low carbers. I assume they enjoy eating that way, and even see it as less of a deprivation than how the rest of us eat (indeed, I get annoyed sometimes when low carbers assume that others would be envious of how they eat and just don't get that we can or should eat that way -- it's personal preference and being able to eat that much fat isn't something I desire, but certainly I can see how it feels like indulgence or the opposite of deprivation for those whose tastes run that way and who don't care much about, say, pasta with lean meat and vegetables or roasted potatoes with just a hint of olive oil -- we have different food loves. Some post about actively disliking roasted chicken or lamb or steak, whereas I love them. Not eating in a way you don't enjoy eating and instead eating a way you find more enjoyable is obviously not deprivation. For me, never eating cold cereal (which I hate) or fast food isn't deprivation, but if I loved them, it would be good to know that I didn't have to give them up. I love eating at fun and interesting restaurants (I'm picky about the restaurants, though, since the calories have to be worth it), and not doing that would be deprivation for me. Others have said they never do. For some, I think that's an overreaction -- I have to know the calories or will stress -- but for others, they just don't care about them or have a social life that involves them, it's no loss, but a matter of not wasting calories on things not worth it to them. For them, that's not deprivation, and they shouldn't assume that if someone says "don't deprive yourself" they are being told to do something they don't want to do anyway. I never assume it means I must go to McD's or eat bacon all the time, after all.

ogtmama

Well, I did spin, yoga and went for an hour long walk tonight...I'm having some wine with my Grey's anatomy

Orphia

I'm the OP. Thanks to all the wonderful people who understand this concept and try to help others.

To clarify in case anyone still doesn't get my point:

Just count calories.

Once you start logging what you eat in MFP, you'll soon categorise some foods as "worth the calories" or not.

Some people make room in their daily calorie count for chocolate. Others might like a lot of bacon. Tuna is low in calories, high in protein, and quite filling, but some people hate fish.

Eat what makes you satisfied. That is different for everyone.

But the diet that keeps you satisfied is the one you will stick to.