"The problem with sugar is your problem with sugar"

BrainyBurro

strawman argument is strawman.

controlling hunger is about satiation.

if you eat filling foods all day and meet your micro- and macro-nutrional needs, there is no reason you can't top off your calories at the end of the day with just a handful of Oreos without feeling the need to eat the whole bag. lots of people do just fine following that process (IIFYM).

it's a poor workman who blames his tools.

This is perfect example of someone else not understanding a behavioral addiction to food.

When I sit down and eat 20 Oreo cookies, hunger has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am eating them for pleasure.

I did this just last night - ate a sleeve of Oreos not 2 hours after eating a full dinner of PF Chang's. I did not eat them because I was hungry. I ate them because they tasted good.

there's no such thing as addiction to food.

it's psycho-babble intended to make you feel like a victim. it's nonsense.

every human being has a desire for food. we all experience pleasure from food. from its taste. its smell. etc. trying to claim that you're some special snowflake because you have a special addiction that the rest of us can't understand, is not going to be met with any sympathy or empathy from me.

you ate all those Oreos either because you were hungry or bored.

there is a strategy that you can learn to allow you to eat Oreos in moderation by controlling your hunger.

if you're eating out of boredom, then you need to learn willpower. that's 100% on you. it's not the cookies. it's not the food. it's not anything except your unwillingness to address the real issue.

i'm sorry if you disagree, but i live in the real world. it's a world of reason and logic and common sense and i grow weary of arguments predicated on the idea that somebody is not to be held accountable for their own actions. YOU ate the cookies. keyword: YOU.

BTW, you can still eat a whole bag of cookies and lose weight if you want to bad enough. i ate 3500 calories yesterday and also walked 14.6 miles to give me an additional 2040 calorie burn for the day. i still came in at more than a 1000 calorie deficit for the day.

SoDamnHungry

fyi, since we are talking about OREOS... I made oreo truffles at 60-70 cals per truffle... they were super good!!!

I used...

1 pack sugar free chocolate sandwich cookies
6 low fat honey gram cracker sheets
1 container fat free cream cheese...

crunch and mix these things like meat loaf... then rolled into 35 balls!

then, I melted 200g sugar free white chocolate, and dipped the balls into it
let the balls sit in fridge on wax paper for about 20 minutes to set...

yum freakin yum...

these are not SUGAR FREE... however, they are reduced sugar, reduced fat...

my ONLY goal was to make with lowest calories possible, so...

pics of the truffles are on my facebook page!

I'm gonna make this, but the sugary version with full fat. =D

odusgolp

I hate oreos.




That is all.

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

bump for later

maillemaker

I have a raging sweet tooth. There are certain things (Oreos, Oreo Fudgees and Moose Tracks ice cream, to name a few) that I CANNOT have in my house. I will eat way too much of any of them. The only thing keeping me from eating the entirety of a package or container is I get sick at about half-way through.

However, my SO pretty much always has a container of cookies and cream ice cream in the house and I keep bars of dark chocolate to have a few squares a day. I also have peanut butter (with sugar added) in my house at all times.

I can control myself with those things.

My conclusion is that it isn't sugar that is the issue. It is a personal taste in specific foods that some of us just like SO much we don't stop once we start. So cutting out all sugar when you could just keep away from some very specific foods seems silly and a bit of an overreaction to me.

I agree with you 100%.

RhonndaJ

This thread has also started me wondering where the heck I can get my hands on a piece of sugar cane.

QuietBloom

So after reading so many posts, I think I can summarize my take on the 'moderation vs abstaining' debate

-learning moderation is difficult
-abstaining from food is difficult

However, you only have to learn moderation once. Abstinence will be difficult forever. You (royal you, not directed at any one person) are never going to forget that oreos are awesome, despite how militant you may become, and how loud you may shout about eating clean. As hard as anyone may try to keep their home free from any trigger foods, those foods still exist. They pop up at parties, outings, work, wherever you least expect them. You cannot control your entire external environment, so you might as well learn to control yourself.

Excellent post!

jayrudq

A couple of things I've gotten from this thread.

There are other people as fascinated by these threads as I am.

There are people who don't understand the meaning of the word 'moderation.'

Surprisingly, I don't want any Oreos.

Something I didn't learn but am curious about... those people who've cut out sugars/carbs entirely or near to entirely... is it all sugar things and/or carb things that you can't handle, or just some, or have you not taken time to sort it out?

I agree with you entirely. Oreos as so meh.

On the carb/sugar thing. Having taken time to sort it out is an understatement...years. Starting with the first Atkins diet I went on 10 years ago. In its most basic form it is following the glycemic index. It is not a perfect instrument by any means (nor I am), but helps me figure out what works in terms of my controlling my appetite. And that is exactly what it is for me: appetite control (and satiety) and appetite control equals calories-in control. Calories-in control equals weight loss or maintenance. And I eat a fair amount of carbs everyday. It doesn't require elimination.

jofjltncb6

strawman argument is strawman.

controlling hunger is about satiation.

if you eat filling foods all day and meet your micro- and macro-nutrional needs, there is no reason you can't top off your calories at the end of the day with just a handful of Oreos without feeling the need to eat the whole bag. lots of people do just fine following that process (IIFYM).

it's a poor workman who blames his tools.

This is perfect example of someone else not understanding a behavioral addiction to food.

When I sit down and eat 20 Oreo cookies, hunger has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am eating them for pleasure.

I did this just last night - ate a sleeve of Oreos not 2 hours after eating a full dinner of PF Chang's. I did not eat them because I was hungry. I ate them because they tasted good.

It sounds like *you* definitely have a problem with sugar...

...or at least with Oreos.

Holly_Roman_Empire

I hate oreos.




That is all.

How dare you blaspheme this thread! That is all. :laugh:

Mcgrawhaha

fyi, since we are talking about OREOS... I made oreo truffles at 60-70 cals per truffle... they were super good!!!

I used...

1 pack sugar free chocolate sandwich cookies
6 low fat honey gram cracker sheets
1 container fat free cream cheese...

crunch and mix these things like meat loaf... then rolled into 35 balls!

then, I melted 200g sugar free white chocolate, and dipped the balls into it
let the balls sit in fridge on wax paper for about 20 minutes to set...

yum freakin yum...

these are not SUGAR FREE... however, they are reduced sugar, reduced fat...

my ONLY goal was to make with lowest calories possible, so...

pics of the truffles are on my facebook page!

I'm gonna make this, but the sugary version with full fat. =D

that version turns out super good too! my daughter made the regular version for the rest of the family this weekend. those come in at about 175 per truffle, and the only difference is use 2 packages of oreos, no gram crackers, and 1 block of full fat cream cheese... also, regular confectioners coating chocolate!

rml_16

I agree with you entirely. Oreos as so meh.

I think Oreos are meh until I actually eat one. It's one of those foods I tend to forget I love until I taste it. lol

ryry_

strawman argument is strawman.

controlling hunger is about satiation.

if you eat filling foods all day and meet your micro- and macro-nutrional needs, there is no reason you can't top off your calories at the end of the day with just a handful of Oreos without feeling the need to eat the whole bag. lots of people do just fine following that process (IIFYM).

it's a poor workman who blames his tools.

This is perfect example of someone else not understanding a behavioral addiction to food.

When I sit down and eat 20 Oreo cookies, hunger has absolutely nothing to do with it. I am eating them for pleasure.

I did this just last night - ate a sleeve of Oreos not 2 hours after eating a full dinner of PF Chang's. I did not eat them because I was hungry. I ate them because they tasted good.

Speaking of gambling addictions, I'd be willing to bet you ate PF Changs, "broke" your diet, and said F' it pass the Oreos....

Am I close?

Mcgrawhaha

I hate oreos.




That is all.

How dare you blaspheme this thread! That is all. :laugh:

whoa whoa whoa... other countries cut your tounge out for saying such vile things...

ryry_

I caught my own hand in the cookie jar....True story.

LiftAllThePizzas

...

maillemaker

there's no such thing as addiction to food.

it's psycho-babble intended to make you feel like a victim. it's nonsense.

This is false. 30 seconds of Google will show this to you.

you ate all those Oreos either because you were hungry or bored.

This is also false.

As I said, I ate them for the pleasure of eating them.

there is a strategy that you can learn to allow you to eat Oreos in moderation by controlling your hunger.

I was not hungry when I ate them. In fact, I had just recently eaten a 1500+ calorie meal of PF Chang's. I assure you I did not eat them because I was hungry.

if you're eating out of boredom, then you need to learn willpower. that's 100% on you. it's not the cookies. it's not the food. it's not anything except your unwillingness to address the real issue.

Of course it's about willpower. Every addiction or compulsive behavior is "just" about willpower. Gambling is "just" about willpower.

i'm sorry if you disagree, but i live in the real world. it's a world of reason and logic and common sense and i grow weary of arguments predicated on the idea that somebody is not to be held accountable for their own actions. YOU ate the cookies. keyword: YOU.

And gamblers choose to gamble. And internet addicts choose to use the internet. And sex addicts choose to have sex. And so on and so on. Ultimately, every addiction or compulsive behavior is about the individual.

No one (except folks like you, of course) are claiming that people should not be held accountable for their own actions. Explaining actions is not the same thing as excusing them.

When I tell you that I can't control myself from over-eating Oreo cookies and thus abstinence is a better course of action than moderation, I am in no way saying I'm not accountable for over-eating Oreo cookies.

BTW, you can still eat a whole bag of cookies and lose weight if you want to bad enough. i ate 3500 calories yesterday and also walked 14.6 miles to give me an additional 2040 calorie burn for the day. i still came in at more than a 1000 calorie deficit for the day.

Of course you can. There was a professor who lost weight eating only Twinkies and other snack cakes. As long as you maintain a calorie deficit, you will lose weight.

jofjltncb6

I caught my own hand in the cookie jar....True story.

Yes, you!

maillemaker

And that's why I have no respect for people who abstain.

BTW it takes more effort to learn moderation AT FIRST, but in the long term moderation has a better payoff.

Abstaining is just choosing the short term over the long term. It's the same sort of mental laziness that causes gluttony.

I don't really care. The proof is the number on the scale. I'm averaging 5 pounds a month over 6 months now. If that's not worthy of respect, or is somehow "mentally lazy" to you, that's OK.

donyellemoniquex3

Bahaha

That sounds so wrong