1,200 - but what if you're eating good food?

DamePiglet

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

I think these are two different things.

If eating something makes you crave more of it, such that you want it more than if you never had it, then for the most part not eating it is probably a decent strategy. That's not my reaction to treats, but I understand that many people say it's theirs. I'd only warn you that if you've just started the easiness of not wanting whatever it is you've cut out (if you wanted it before you started this plan) might go away, and then you will have to come up with a strategy.

But in any case, I think the good/bad issue is different. A lot of people seem to approach food much like sex. They convince themselves that stuff they think they shouldn't have (do) is disgusting and not something they'd want, is not natural, unhealthy, etc. This may well help them not want it, for a while. But if it's a mental game, at some point they will likely cave, and indulge, and then not only have eaten more than they want, but have internal messages set to tell them that what they ate was disgusting and they are thus disgusting and perverted and a failure and so on. And for many people this makes them feel shameful and creates the kinds of emotional strains that often let to overeating to satisfy, so they eat more. Or, similarly, they figure they've screwed up and are disgusting, so might as well just shove more and more in their face until they eat tons. Either way they end up feeling much worse about themselves. In the long run they may build up a situation where everytime they "cheat" and eat a little it's a food they assume they can't normally have, so take the opportunity to eat and eat and create for emotional reasons the situation that they can't eat the food in moderation.

That's what I see as really bad about calling foods bad and good or (sorry!) clean and unclean. It partakes in this kind of thing.

If you can just shrug and say "I don't eat whatever, it's a trigger food for me" without having to reinforce to yourself that it's bad or disgusting or makes you FAT or some such, then that's great.

I do suspect a little that BELIEF that a food is a trigger food to some extent emotionally makes it so, but at a certain point you just have to go with what works for you.

Most people do not approach sex in that way. Those who do should seek counseling. It's not normal.

I'm not saying that in a mean, arrogant or snarky way.

Yes, it's a super screwed up way to approach sex that leads to neurotic behavior and self hatred, like it is a super screwed up way to approach eating, same. That was (rather obviously, I would have thought) the point!

You never really finished the whole sex comparison. The premise alone was disturbing.

I leave you all to your "Potato chips aren't bad for you!" stuff. But I promise you that if you put spinach on one table and potato chips on another and asked a cardiologist to point to the one that is bad for you, he would not be stumped.

You never answered me about how or why it would be a mistake for me to eat ice cream or a donut in my dietary scenario.

Cardiologists are scientists. He would likely try to determine what you've eaten already today and whether or not you have kidney problems or issues with absorbing calcium before suggesting that you eat the spinach (also, if depends on the serving size... an entire bag of spinach vs. 4 potato chips?)

Either way, s/he is very likely not going to talk in absolutes the way that you promise s/he will.

You really shouldn't make promises that you can't keep.

iwantodance

I didn't read all these posts but thought I'd put in a word. When I eat 1,400 calories instead of 1200 calories, the little tracker at the bottom of my food log calculates me losing weight at a faster rate.