Moderation DOES NOT WORK for me

Meerataila

I have a problem with the elimination method not because I find it unsustainable, but because people who have been doing it successfully for more than 3 weeks love to insinuate that it's the only way to be healthy. Examples of things being told to new people on these boards on a daily basis: "Sugar is the worst thing in the world for you, well *refined* sugar, sugar from fruit is okay." This isn't true. If you find you binge less after eliminating candy, it doesn't mean sugar is to blame, addictive or any of the other ridiculous things people say.

Well technically if you were using the strictest definition of 'healthy' is there ever a reason to eat refined sugar? If we're going with optimal ultimate no holds barred health, aren't we talking about getting as many nutrients in as possible for every calorie (except for those who need to gain weight of course)?

I guess that the same can be said for people in the "everything in moderation" camp, we seem to think everyone should do what we're doing because it works for us. That's the point of these boards, though. People with differing opinions can discuss their methods. It doesn't mean anyone is a "bully" or getting their jollies off.

This doesn't bother me. What bothers is when people get nasty and insulting about it.

But anyway, is it sustainable to eliminate foods that you find to be arbitrarily "bad?"

Our ancestors survived without Oreos, I can too. Just not without coffee and internet access!

Drop me a line when you've been doing it for 10 years and haven't gained any weight back, I guess.

Drop me a line when you've been doing moderation for ten years and not gained ANY weight back. I know there are rare exceptions, but most people who have struggled with weight in the past will again, regardless of their chosen methods.

I've done it in the past, and have lost and gained back a significant amount of weight about 6 times. This time I am doing things differently, truly allowing myself to eat whatever I want within reason and I've honestly never felt better about myself or the future. I want people to know they don't have to be miserable and they can STOP binge eating without cutting anything out. They just have to want to.

I hope your way works for you, but first, no guarantee it will, and second, even if it does, there is no guarantee your way will work for me.

However, I have no issues with you at all. You're polite, capable of intelligent discussion, you aren't the type of poster that boils my blood and reminds me that I could be more mature by just using the ignore feature!

parkscs

But anyway, is it sustainable to eliminate foods that you find to be arbitrarily "bad?" Drop me a line when you've been doing it for 10 years and haven't gained any weight back, I guess. I've done it in the past, and have lost and gained back a significant amount of weight about 6 times. This time I am doing things differently, truly allowing myself to eat whatever I want within reason and I've honestly never felt better about myself or the future. I want people to know they don't have to be miserable and they can STOP binge eating without cutting anything out. They just have to want to.

And here's a perfect example of some of the misconception some people have of "restrictive" diets. Just for an example, I may choose to keep a very low carb macro and refrain from things like cake, but that doesn't mean I arbitrarily consider these foods bad nor does it mean I won't reintroduce them at some point in the future. Rather, it just means that for right now, I've made a conscious choice to eat particular macros that all but exclude any reasonable portion of these foods because I find that's the best way for me to accomplish my current goals. If and when I up my carb macro in the future, there's no reason I can't eat dessert (even though I'm not a big dessert guy to begin with), and even before then there will certainly be occasions where I choose to deviate from my current macros (e.g., that delicious fig stuffed with gorgonzola and topped with aged balsamic that I had earlier this week, even though I was already over my carbs for the day). Miserable and deprived is hardly how I would characterize my diet.

As for your past ups and downs, the logical disconnect there is you're attributing your past failures to the way you achieved your past success, yet these are completely separate events. I'd argue that it doesn't matter how you lost the weight (ignoring fringe cases where you lost a significant amount of LBM due to an eating disorder or the like) - what matters for long-term success is what you did after you lost the weight. Put another way, the way you lost weight in the past sounds like it was successful to me, but where your plan fell apart was in the maintenance phase. Rather than feeling you need to make a shift in how you cut weight (which you've done successfully in the past), I'd say you want to really focus on how you plan to maintain your weight loss.

Kalikel

There are so many different people saying things I agree with that I can't even quote them all. I am loving this thread.

It's about damn time.

I eat meat (lean, white) and eggs, but I can cheer on the Vegans.

I don't eat Oreos, but I can cheer on someone who does. (And if anyone knows how those Reese's ones taste, please let me know. Are they good, like Reese's or is it a washed-out, pale imitation of the Reese's flavor?)

It's just not that hard to do your own thing and still cheer on people who do it differently and encourage them on their path.

extra_medium

And if I'm going to have pizza, as a foodie it's going to be a damned good probably artisan pizza. No Pizza Hut for me. But it's going to be on a whole wheat crust (or cauliflower if I get the hankering, which happens), and have lots of veggies.

That's not pizza.

lemurcat12

That seems much healthier to me than making it all about eliminating stuff. Now, it may be that you get derailed by some trigger foods anyway and want to avoid temptation (and I think that's a sensible strategy), but starting with "I won't eat!" seems so likely to create a feeling of deprivation that may not exist. Why not make it about the great things you do eat?

I just think that not everyone is wired that way. If I tell myself I'm not going to eat cake today, I'm not going to dwell on it and stress that I'm "cake deprived."

You do realize that what you seem to be talking about is basically the same thing I'm recommending. I'm not saying eat cake every day. I'm saying that making your diet plan about NEVER eating cake (and everything with added sugar and pizza and pasta and "processed foods" and so on) rather than about eating things you like to eat that happen to fit easily into the plan, you are intentionally putting all your attention on the deprivation. Maybe we are very different, but I frequently don't eat cake, and yet I never start my day by deciding "no cake today!" That just seems weird and unnecessary.

So re your claim that you don't feel cake deprived -- of course not. But I think if you start with the idea that you are going to eat X,Y, and Z, and not whatever does not fit into your plan, and then you happen upon cake at lunch (someone's birthday, you know), it's probably not so hard to just think about it and decide that it doesn't fit in your plan.

And if instead you decide that it fits okay if you give up something else for one day and have a small piece, you aren't breaking any promises to yourself or falling off the wagon or whatever, which for some people might cause them to decide that they've just proven they can't do it and eat badly for the rest of the day or week.

Like I said before, I haven't given up anything (including cake) as part of this effort to lose weight, but the reality is that since I started early this year I've had cake maybe once (a work thing), pie never (I'm the one who usually makes it at Easter and didn't, I'm sure I'll have some on Thanksgiving), Chicago-style pizza never, so on. And I haven't missed any of these things, because I don't have some silly idea that each opportunity to have them might be my last ever and they aren't on some forbidden list. Instead, the opportunity appears, I think if it fits into my plan that day, typically it doesn't, and there's no hardship because when it does I might have some.

While I might be childish in thinking more about something that's offered if I feel like I have to say no (because I gave up cake) vs. just don't have the room for it today, I seriously doubt that someone who claims she CAN'T do moderation, that she has no control at all over cake, is going to find just giving it up solves her problems.

But don't ask me, ask the OP who started this. As I recall she said that she can't do elimination either, since her parents don't cooperate by eliminating the foods from their diets also.

And that, really, is the point. I'm in favor of reducing temptation by not constantly going to pizza places if pizza is your favorite food and you want to cut down some. Ideally this will be coupled with focusing on other favorite foods that do fit well into your plan more often. But if your strategy is to eliminate and avoid pizza and you decide you can't resist that temptation but you also live and work with people who eat it (as most of us do), you are setting yourself up for failure. I get offered sweets and pizza and other high calorie foods all the time. If my whole thing was that I had to avoid it (not just not eat it or eat it only when the taste is really worth it to me and it fits in my calories), I couldn't succeed. So part of any strategy must be to deal with that.

Brandolin11

They are finding the same rate of success with OA as they are with AA. This is significant, even if the science hasn't caught up with it yet.

No one actually knows AA's rate of success.

I'd say pretty poor if you have to go to meetings for the rest of your life. And, I say that having had family members in the program for decades. There's got to be a better way.

To those who are considering a 12-step program, please do not listen to this. If you're interested in trying it out, please do and don't worry about the naysayers.

lemurcat12

It's just not that hard to do your own thing and still cheer on people who do it differently and encourage them on their path.

Agree.

(I'd add--not directed at you--that telling people they are "addicted" to eating sugar if they don't eliminate it or that they must be eating unhealthy if they aren't "eating clean" or the like doesn't count as encouraging other paths.)

LiminalAscendance

Food is going to surround you for the rest of your life. You are going to have train your mind to eating smaller portions, including fast food, if you're going to survive, and live a happier, healthier life style.

Why? Fast food is not required for survival or health, and many people live happy lives without it.

That's what I don't really understand. You've got people saying "just suck it up and eat everything in moderation" as if people with a really poor relationship with food just have infinite willpower, but then when you suggest someone stop eating something like pizza when dropping weight, the very same people will be the first to come in screaming "that's not sustainable!" and "I could never give up my pizza!" - presumably because of a lack of willpower (as it's most certainly sustainable in the abstract). Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

Personally I just think people need to experiment to find what works for them and then just do that. If eating little portions of pizza is your thing, then that's what you should do. On the other hand, if you enjoy large portions and feeling full, then pizza is probably a terrible choice when dropping weight, so it might be best to give Domino's a break. There's no need to push so hard for what has worked for you in the past while at the same trivializing the effort that it took and the additional effort that would be required for someone with a poor relationship with food would have to put in to follow that same program. Let people find works for them and take it a step at a time.

That's so true. I'd never thought about it that way. That some of the very same people who are screaming about needing more will power and self-control in moderation are the first to complain about unsustainability in elimination approaches. Funny, that more don't just tell them to suck it up and gain a little self-control!

I have a problem with the elimination method not because I find it unsustainable, but because people who have been doing it successfully for more than 3 weeks love to insinuate that it's the only way to be healthy. Examples of things being told to new people on these boards on a daily basis: "Sugar is the worst thing in the world for you, well *refined* sugar, sugar from fruit is okay." This isn't true. If you find you binge less after eliminating candy, it doesn't mean sugar is to blame, addictive or any of the other ridiculous things people say.

I guess that the same can be said for people in the "everything in moderation" camp, we seem to think everyone should do what we're doing because it works for us. That's the point of these boards, though. People with differing opinions can discuss their methods. It doesn't mean anyone is a "bully" or getting their jollies off.

But anyway, is it sustainable to eliminate foods that you find to be arbitrarily "bad?" Drop me a line when you've been doing it for 10 years and haven't gained any weight back, I guess. I've done it in the past, and have lost and gained back a significant amount of weight about 6 times. This time I am doing things differently, truly allowing myself to eat whatever I want within reason and I've honestly never felt better about myself or the future. I want people to know they don't have to be miserable and they can STOP binge eating without cutting anything out. They just have to want to.

10 years without regaining?

It seems like you don't know the statistics on those that regain their weight regardless of the method they used to lose initially.

It's amusing that so many are incredulous that individuals exist that can actually pass on foods they would otherwise eat, in order to lose weight. It says more about them, than anyone else.

maillemaker

Who is "the lay person"?

People who have made the connection between processed foods and weight gain.

Why are frozen vegetables more "calorie dense" than fresh ones? I mean, I can get pretty great fresh ones at the moment (my garden, my CSA. local farmers markets), but around Christmas I'd bet the frozen ones have a better profile than the ones in the grocery store (any grocery store) carted in from who knows where.

I think we need to agree on a definition of "processed food". Just about all foods are "processed" in some way today. Apples are picked with machines, washed by machines, and packaged by machines, so you could say that apples are a processed food.

Likewise, frozen vegetables are picked, washed, packaged, and frozen using machinery. So I could see how you could think that was "processed food" also. However, as you note, frozen vegetables are pretty much identical to fresh ones from a nutrient point of view.

This is not what I think most people think of when they think of processed food. Generally this implies a manufactured food product. Think Twinkies.

And my morning cottage cheese (sorry, Sabine), precisely what is wrong with the calorie density of that? It fit into the calories and macro profile I wanted for my breakfast, after all. (I add dairy to breakfast for the protein, as well as the delicious taste.)

Any food that fits into your calorie profile is OK to eat. The problem is for people who are not tracking calories and are simply eating to satiety. If you eat the standard American diet that way, you will probably be eating a caloric surplus, due to its tasty, calorie-dense nature.

Now, obviously, if one makes a pie one should be aware that there are lots of calories in it. Is anyone is real life confused on this point? I can't imagine.

I think most people are aware that a pie is calorie-dense. But they may not be so aware about other manufactured food products.

maillemaker

Even if you don't, just because mom buys a tub of ice cream or fries up some chicken doesn't mean you have to eat it or that you can't practice moderation.

Sure makes it harder, though, right?

I grew up with a family of obese people and now that I'm calorie counting I'm starting to realize that meals they were preparing werne't necessarily the problem. Consumption of sugared sodas contributed to my family's obesity, excess consumption of deserts and fried foods, not measuring snacks like potatoe chips and ultimately lack of exercise from watching TV or playing video games all day.

I submit to you that it probably wasn't just not measuring snacks that contributed to your calorie surpluses. I bet you no one counted calories for any food input.

If you do that with the modern American food supply, most people will end up eating a surplus and ultimately end up overweight, which is exactly what we see.

maillemaker

That's not an addiction.

An addiction is when you pull out a Glock and rob the 7-11 on your way into the restaurant so you can order the Naan you wouldn't otherwise be able to eat.

What you're describing is just a lack of discipline.

First of all, all addictions are the result of a lack of discipline.

Second of all, there are plenty of people addicted to cigarettes who don't rob grocery stores to feed their addiction. It seems to be a common misconception by many around here that in order to be addicted to something you must have a life-destroying condition. There are many people addicted to many things, from food to cigarettes to alcohol to sex to gambling to pornography who are quite high-level functioning in society.

Now quite often addictive behaviors do result in self-destructive consequences. There are many people addicted to gambling who live otherwise quite normal lives - right up until they lose their home to gambling debt.

But you don't have to hit rock bottom to have an addiction.

maillemaker

not true, the term you are looking for is Compulsion versus Addiction

http://addictions.about.com/od/howaddictionhappens/a/addcompulsion.htm

From your link:

Key Differences
Pleasure

One major distinction between an addiction and a compulsion (as it is experienced in obsessive-compulsive disorder) is the experience of pleasure. While people who have addictions suffer all manner of discomforts, the desire to use the substance or engage in the behavior is based on the expectation that it will be pleasurable.

In contrast, someone who experiences a compulsion as part of obsessive-compulsive disorder may not get any pleasure from the behavior he carries out. Often, it is a way of dealing with the obsessive part of the disorder, resulting in a feeling of relief.

I'd say the uncontrollable urge to eat can be both. There is the pleasure of the eating, and the relief of no longer being hungry.

Kalikel

It's just not that hard to do your own thing and still cheer on people who do it differently and encourage them on their path.

Agree.

(I'd add--not directed at you--that telling people they are "addicted" to eating sugar if they don't eliminate it or that they must be eating unhealthy if they aren't "eating clean" or the like doesn't count as encouraging other paths.)

Eating healthy food and losing weight are two different topics. I'm never going to agree that this "moderation" concept means the junk food isn't bad for you. The peas and spinach don't cancel out the lard in the Oreo.

I know and love people who eat - God, my boyfriend eats nothing but crap. The only veggie is potato and it's always fried or loaded with butter, sour cream, bacon...the man doesn't eat a single thing that is good for him, ever. Still love him! If he sat around arguing that his diet was healthy, we'd be disagreeing, lol. He knows it's not. He just likes fried chicken, ribs, pizza, cheeseburgers, French fries, cake, pie, etc.

I have no personal desire to make people I don't love switch their eating habits. I have no ability to make those I love do it, so wouldn't even try to influence others. If people need their steak, Oreos, whatever, they need them. I can respect that. And they are yummy!

But I will not pretend that all food is equal and Oreos are good for you. They're not.

lemurcat12

I think most people are aware that a pie is calorie-dense. But they may not be so aware about other manufactured food products.

I choose not to believe that other people are idiots until I am proven wrong. The fact is that packaged foods vary greatly in calorie content (I have yet to discover a packaged dinner that didn't seem unappealing to me, based on taste vs. other options, but it's undeniable that some of them have pretty low calories). But one thing that basically everyone knows about them is that their calorie content is printed on the package. Similarly, if you buy frozen tater tots or some kind of frozen lasagna, I imagine most people know about the calories or are intentionally choosing not to find out. And Twinkies? Hardly a mystery. (And not actually more calories than analogous home baked sweets, I suspect. It's not like people are really thinking "cookies? too many calories. Rather than baking I'll go buy some of those low calorie Hostess treats.")

My mother dislikes cooking, and so these days she and my dad eat lots of boxed stuff you add to meat (they eat basically fish, shrimp, and chicken). My mother cares about calories, so they don't actually eat high calorie meals at all. I'm sure I ate a lot more calories back in the day, and I've never been one for packaged meals, since I like to cook and am (obnoxiously, I admit) kind of a food snob.

For what it's worth, my parents never did the packaged thing until all their children were long grown up and out of the house, so I'm always confused by this idea that the standard American diet is highly processed stuff. When I was growing up (granted, I'm kind of old), the standard American diet was meat and potatoes/corn and some vegetables. That's still what I think of as a standard dinner, although instead of potatoes/corn maybe rice or quinoa or some pasta. Now if one is dieting one might cut down on carbs, but that particular dinner (hardly uncommon) isn't actually the problem.

Thus, again, this generalization about how other people eat is kind of annoying. (This particular conversational offshoot started with some proclamation about how we were all eating a bunch of packaged stuff containing HFCS, as I recall, simply because we didn't condemn added sugar.)

Hegemone

I love Kathleen DesMaison's research and her books. She has a website: radiant recovery. She writes about how certain foods are addictive to some people. So, some people can be all, sure, I'll have ONE cookie. And others are like, I just ate the dang bag... I think it goes beyond will power and I think she is onto something with her research and approach. Cheers.

TheFrugalFatass

Moderation doesn't work for me either when it comes to certain foods. I have learned that I am unable to eat sweets or potato chips in moderation, so I no longer eat them. Some people say that "depriving" yourself of certain foods leads to cravings and overeating. For me, it does just the opposite; cutting those foods completely out of my diet has actually LESSENED my cravings for them. The first month of not eating them was sheer, white-knuckle willpower. After that, it's like the desire to eat them completely left me. (I like to say I "detoxed" from them.)

Whatever works for you.

lemurcat12

But you don't have to hit rock bottom to have an addiction.

I actually agree that addictions need not result in desperate measures to acquire the subject of the addiction if it's reasonably available. But that aside, if you don't see that it's absurd to claim that I (or anyone else) is addicted to naan, there's really nothing to talk about. And remember (since it was my naan example that we are discussing) that I said I have no problem taking or leaving most other breads. It's thus like claiming that someone is addicted to '00 Bordeaux.

maillemaker

Oh, so what you're saying is instead we should lay out step for step exactly what the person should do. Tell them when, how and what to eat? You mean we should spoon feed people the advice they are looking for? The good thing about that is there are tons and tons of people around here looking for that, you'd be a perfect support system for them.

Of course not.

I think we all agree that controlling caloric intake is key to weight loss, and controlling caloric intake takes willpower.

It is of absolutely no use to say to someone, "Welp, you just need more willpower and stop making excuses!"

Everyone who has ever tried to lose weight knows that they need willpower. You have not helped anyone by telling them this.

If you want to be helpful, you have to tell people how to make best use of the willpower they have available to them!

If you've got willpower to spare, why, sure, you can crack open a whole f@cking case of Girl Scout cookies and just eat one. If you don't, maybe a better option would be not be around Girl Scout cookies.

That is helpful advice about willpower.

If all you want to do is say, "Welp, you're weak, deal with it!", save your breath.

maillemaker

For those of you who genuinely believe you have addiction issues, stop wasting time on MFP and get yourself into a 12-step (or etc) program.

If you aren't going to take your "addiction" seriously, you can be damn sure random strangers on an internet forum aren't going to take it seriously.

I'd settle for just an acknowledgement of its reality.