Moderation or Deprivation? Which works for you personally?

RetiredAndLovingIt

I don't think abstaining from foods that will make you sick is deprivation at all. For about 5 years I believed I was allergic to peanuts, so I avoided everything with peanuts. Not deprivation because I wanted to live, lol. Got tested...not allergic so now snickers & especially peanut m&m's are not safe around me...now abstaining is like deprivation.

kommodevaran

I haven't managed to read through the whole thread, but I (too) want to point out that it's not between moderation and deprivation, but between moderation and abstaining. And the definitions of moderation and abstaining are going to be individual. One person's moderation, can easily look like abstaining for another person; what someone calls abstaining, could fall under moderation for another. Whether it's abstaining or deprivation, is another matter, and going to be subjective. It's about mindset. If you feel that not having is your free choice, it's abstaining. If you feel you shouldn't or can't have, it's deprivation.

paperpudding

RetiredAndLovingIt wrote: »

I don't think abstaining from foods that will make you sick is deprivation at all. For about 5 years I believed I was allergic to peanuts, so I avoided everything with peanuts. Not deprivation because I wanted to live, lol. Got tested...not allergic so now snickers & especially peanut m&m's are not safe around me...now abstaining is like deprivation.

Well, yes - but allergies is another story.

I'm sure nobody would argue that somebody with an allergy to a product should try moderation of that product - of course in that case it is full deprivation, no choice there.

JeromeBarry1

It varies for me. I must deprive Nutella. I can moderate ice cream.

Chunkahlunkah

Running_and_Coffee wrote: »

Specific foods have an impact on my brain. Like if I eat some cheese or almond as a snack, I don’t think about food again until I’m hungry. If I have an equal calories’ amount of crackers or oatmeal, I will think about food until the next meal and crave specific things that aren’t as healthy. So I don’t eat the foods that set off the cravings. But because I lack cravings, I also don’t feel deprived. I don’t see it as deprivation...it’s knowing myself well enough to set myself up for success.

This applies for me. Once I realized it, it felt like such an appetite hack. It's *so much easier* to eat at a lower calorie level when I structure my meals on satiety and how they make me feel after eating them.

In conjunction with that mindful design of what I eat, I eat in moderation. I still eat the foods that set off my appetite, I just eat them in strategic ways that I've learned don't throw my appetite out of whack. For example, I love brownies, but just eating one small piece by itself turns my appetite up too high. I don't like that feeling at all. What helps is having a piece with a glass of milk. It's more calories up front, but it fills me up and ends the impact with that meal, rather than spreading a ravenous appetite afterwards. I haven't eliminated any foods, just found ways to eat them that work with me (which for some foods, just means having them very infrequently).

Chunkahlunkah

sheliftsheavythings wrote: »

Moderation or deprivation is not really the point, is it. The whole idea of food consumption has morphed from being simply a fuel, into being a pleasure. If one treats food as a means to an end: to aid our bodies to function properly, efficiently and in a healthy fashion, there would be no question as to how we do so.

Animals eat for fuel. Being a 'foodie' is a human behavior. Change your perspective.

I strongly disagree with this. You can greatly enjoy and appreciate food while not being a glutton. Pleasure isn't in itself bad. You don't need to divorce pleasure from food to maintain a healthy weight.

I do think some people mindlessly use food as entertainment/pleasure though and feel entitled to ignoring a calorie budget. I think if a change of perspective is needed, it's being aware that calories have consequences and we don't get an unlimited supply just bc we'd like one.

Chunkahlunkah

sardelsa wrote: »

sheliftsheavythings wrote: »

Moderation or deprivation is not really the point, is it. The whole idea of food consumption has morphed from being simply a fuel, into being a pleasure. If one treats food as a means to an end: to aid our bodies to function properly, efficiently and in a healthy fashion, there would be no question as to how we do so.

Animals eat for fuel. Being a 'foodie' is a human behavior. Change your perspective.

You clearly aren't Italian

That was my first thought!