Moderation DOES NOT WORK for me

maillemaker

Just my opinion, but I don't see much of a distinction between the control involved with moderation and the control involved with restricting food types. If you have problems with eating certain foods in moderation, it seems like you'll probably just eventually crack if you try to restrict junk food into oblivion.

Also telling someone they need more control is sort of pointless if they feel like it's impossible. Whether or not they're wrong is sort of irrelevant at that point.

On high level it's pretty simple. Energy in and energy out. If someone feels like they don't have the ability to control the Energy In portion of that, then that's that. While you *can* simultaneously want to lose weight, and feel like you can't, you should probably recognize how non-productive that is. The unstoppable force has met the immovable object. To get out of the paradox, some variable will have to shift. If you "can't" control yourself, and you can't control your environment, try a new environment or find some sort of personal growth.

No judgement. No shame. No "suck it up" comments. No coddling. No tough love. It's all about honest priorities. If people construct scenarios that make it "impossible" to succeed, then perhaps it's time to construct a new scenario. Again, I realize it's not easy.

Great post!

maillemaker

I'd advise to do it all. wink Spend time here on MFP, get in a 12-step program, AND take your addiction seriously. See a nutritionist. See a therapist. Do it all. Just because it makes some people on here uncomfortable doesn't mean you can't be on here. I have several friends on here who are in the same boat. MFP is a wonderful support tool. But yes, you do need people with skin on as well. smile

Great post!

maillemaker

To go back to my naan example, which I think is actually more analogous to what people are talking about here than addiction, me saying "I CAN'T stop" is a tempting way to justify what I want to do in the moment, but of course I can stop. Also, it's a self fulfilling prophecy--telling yourself you can't not do something means you do it, pretty much always.

If you can stop, then you are not addicted. Addiction is when you want to stop but can't.

GBrady43068

Hi, Im new to this website. As you can tell from the title I don't think moderation works for me. I tried to keep moderation with unhealthy foods but I just dont like eating only 1. I have 2 problems. First I am a college student so I am still living with my parents, I would throw the food out but sadly im not the only one living here. Also I have to admit even if I did throw out the food I would order pizza hut then. I love food too much. How can I quit the junk food once and for all?

I'm probably going to be repeating everyone else but here goes:
1) You can't "give up" something you love forever...you'll crave it and binge on it eventually.
2) If you have trouble with moderation (I have trouble with it too), start with LITTLE things....dessert only happens on weekends..or dessert only happens every other day. Every pattern you start like that will help and eventually become a habit over time.
3) Look for ways to "improve" your habitual junk food. If you're a stuffed crust pizza junkie, trade it out for NON-stuffed crust. Switch from meat lover's to single meat. Switch from Movie Theater Butter Lover's popcorn to light butter. Cut back on fat and sugar where you can where it's less "noticeable" to you.
4) Beverages are a big source of empty calories. If you drink lots of booze, cut back..if you drink lots of full calorie soda, cut back with things like A&W10...it's not full on diet but tastes better than the full on diet because they use a little "real" sweetener to mask the artificial. 10 calories is way less than 200. If you're drinking 3 sodas a day, that's a savings of 570 calories right there. 5) Add more water. Lots of the time we think we're "hungry" our body is just saying "I'm dehydrated". Drinking more water will help cut back on overeating.
6) Use your "no moderation" to your favor by becoming a little excessive with your physical activity. Your calories are a bank...make more "deposits" with exercise and it allows for more junk food "withdrawals" while still maintaining a deficit to lose weight.

lemurcat12

Eating healthy food and losing weight are two different topics.

Agree.

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.

We can agree to disagree, then. If you ask me if it's more healthy to eat on average 1800 calories of nutrient dense foods vs. 1700 calories of such plus a 100 calorie homemade chocolate chip cookie, say, I'd say it's a wash for the vast majority of people.

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 agree with this. I think diets can be more or less healthy. I just don't think "cleanliness" (i.e., eliminating specific foods) is the definition of what makes a healthy diet. I think getting adequate protein, fiber, micronutrients, etc., meeting one's goals so that one feels as good as possible, is a much better definition.

It's the difference between focusing on a diet overall vs. specific foods. On the whole I think non-nutrient dense foods, in moderate quantities, in the context of an overall healthy diet that does not contain excess calories, are neutral, so if they bring pleasure, that makes them on balance good, barring specific health issues that make them a problem (like an allergy).

More relevant to the "clean" thing, I don't actually think that being processed or not says anything at all about the nutrient density of a food. The specifics matter. Your beloved rice cakes are processed, of course, as is my beloved yogurt.

But I'm sure this discussion will come up over and over, so must tear myself away and go ride my bike around the city (and if this means I have calories enough for ice cream, well, I won't complain)!

(If I knew how to do the flower thing, I'd insert it.)

maillemaker

I think this is why scientists are working so fervently to discover why some people seem to be able to moderate with sweet, fatty, and/or salty foods and other's obsess to the point of bingeing. The *theory* is that there is some kind of reaction happening in particular people's brains that is nearly identical to some people's reactions to alcohol or drugs. This has not been officially proven yet, but they are very close. I hope they figure it out soon.

Social scientists, therapists, and doctors do know for certain that compulsive overeaters are *reporting* the exact same symptoms, thoughts, obsessions, and behaviors as alcoholics, so they are currently *treating* compulsive overeating just like an addiction. 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.

I believe the reason people crack when they deny themselves their trigger foods is because they're approaching it from the wrong mental perspective. There is a big difference between denial and restriction, and abstinence.

Restricting produces obsession because it's a shaming action. You tell yourself over and over "I shouldn't I shouldn't I shouldn't". It causes your mind to fixate on the object. To find relief from the obsession, you must consummate the thought into an action, which turns into bingeing.

Abstinence is an action of *willingness* that follows a deep surrender to the fact that you have a problem. You choose not to eat those things because you realize they take over your mind and cause you to obsess and binge. You are willing to give them up and are grateful for the freedom that follows.

It's hard to explain it. But once you do it, it's amazing! I'm almost three years "clean and sober", if you will haha and am happier than I have ever been.

But that was MY journey and is NOT for everyone. flowerforyou

Great post!

maillemaker

But, you know what, in my entire life, I've never had a craving that was so strong, that I got into the car and drove to the store to buy it. I never said "hmmm I've got these strawberries right here, but I'm going to pass on those, drive to the store and buy the Ben & Jerry's." But, if I had both options at my fingertips, I'm sure the Ben & Jerry's would win out sometime, and perhaps even more than the strawberries.

Boy, I have. Many times.

maillemaker

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.

Great post!

maillemaker

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 quote a line from the movie of the same name, "What if this is as good as it gets?"

Though I am definitely holding out for a safe and effective appetite suppressant, also.

maillemaker

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.

So the correct answer here is to point out that what they were addicted to was not sugar, but the sweet, calorie-dense foods that probably contained sugar that they could not control themselves from eating.

This gets back to my previous comment about the lay-person blaming "processed food" for America's general weight gain. It's not that there is anything mysterious or toxic about processed food. It's just that much of it is a manufactured product that has been engineered to be very compelling to eat and low cost and, probably, calorie dense.

I mean, hell, some product brands are absolutely blatant and explicit about this intention for their product design. Case in point: Lays potato chips' motto: "Betcha can't eat just one!" The product was designed to be uncontrollably consumed.

LiminalAscendance

I mean, hell, some product brands are absolutely blatant and explicit about this intention for their product design. Case in point: Lays potato chips' motto: "Betcha can't eat just one!" The product was designed to be uncontrollably consumed.

Wait...are you saying that these companies, whose purpose is to produce food for a profit, actually try to make their products taste good?

It's a crazy world.

Kalikel

Eating healthy food and losing weight are two different topics.

Agree.

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.

We can agree to disagree, then. If you ask me if it's more healthy to eat on average 1800 calories of nutrient dense foods vs. 1700 calories of such plus a 100 calorie homemade chocolate chip cookie, say, I'd say it's a wash for the vast majority of people.

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 agree with this. I think diets can be more or less healthy. I just don't think "cleanliness" (i.e., eliminating specific foods) is the definition of what makes a healthy diet. I think getting adequate protein, fiber, micronutrients, etc., meeting one's goals so that one feels as good as possible, is a much better definition.

It's the difference between focusing on a diet overall vs. specific foods. On the whole I think non-nutrient dense foods, in moderate quantities, in the context of an overall healthy diet that does not contain excess calories, are neutral, so if they bring pleasure, that makes them on balance good, barring specific health issues that make them a problem (like an allergy).

More relevant to the "clean" thing, I don't actually think that being processed or not says anything at all about the nutrient density of a food. The specifics matter. Your beloved rice cakes are processed, of course, as is my beloved yogurt.

But I'm sure this discussion will come up over and over, so must tear myself away and go ride my bike around the city (and if this means I have calories enough for ice cream, well, I won't complain)!

(If I knew how to do the flower thing, I'd insert it.)

Im not arguing that people shouldn't eat Oreos if they want them. I'm not really arguing at all, but whatever.

I don't get into "clean" because it has as many definitions as "moderation." I just found out the other day that paleo was short for Paleolithic, lol. I'm not into it, but I wish the Modern Cavepeople all the luck in the world with their diets. It is, now, conjuring up images of Captain Caveman. I can't stop thinking about him when I read that. But good for the paleos, doing what they want, being happy.

I just cannot get on board with pretending that junk food is healthy if you also eat broccoli.

I don't think it makes sense to pretend that junk food is healthy. It's not. What is the point of pretending? I wish someone would just tell me THAT. Why do people pretend that the Oreo is as healthy as the spinach and all food is equal. I'm sure some people really don't know, but most people do know that some food is good for you and some isn't. Still, they pretend there is no difference. Why? (If I inserted stupid little pictures, I'd put in Sally Field doing her graveyard scene. "I WANT TO KNOW WHY! WHY?!")

Eat the Oreo. Say, "Yeah, I know it's not good for me. I don't care. I like Oreos." Don't sit around saying, "I'm going to eat the Oreo. It is good for me, because it had spinach for lunch." That's illogical.

I cheer the Oreo eaters. Life is short. People should make their choices and be happy with them. If you're happy eating it, Yay! If you're not, Yay that, too.

I don't get the flower thing, lol. Do some people use it to be nice and others use it to be nasty? I don't know. Not sure what it means. I don't know how to do those things, either.

But agree to disagree.

lindsey1979

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.)

I'm not sure being unaware or wrong means you're an idiot. It seems to be a pretty common occurrence on this very site that people say that once they start diligently tracking their intake (i.e. weighing every little thing) they are quite surprised about what they have been in eating, often in both total caloric value or just that with specific foods. I don't think any of those people (myself included) are idiots.

Meerataila

I mean, hell, some product brands are absolutely blatant and explicit about this intention for their product design. Case in point: Lays potato chips' motto: "Betcha can't eat just one!" The product was designed to be uncontrollably consumed.

Wait...are you saying that these companies, whose purpose is to produce food for a profit, actually try to make their products taste good?

It's a crazy world.

Drug manufacturers have done their best to increase the efficacy of pain killers and at one time speedy appetite suppressants. We know why and we agree on many drugs having great power to heal and/or make life better, but we also know that coca is far less addictive than the concentrated, processed form known as cocaine. So your point is fine, but doesn't invalidate maillemaker's point in the least.

maillemaker

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.)

Yes, manufactured food products *do* vary in calorie content. But the very tasty ones typically are high in calorie content.

Look, the majority of Americans are overweight. There is a reason for this. Part of it is that we are not as physically active as we used to be, but caloric expenditure is only a small part of the daily calorie balance. Most of your calorie balance is determined by what you eat.

My feeling is that the American food supply is what has changed. And it's not just America - it is the rest of the developing world, too.

What I think has happened is that modern people are pressed for time and money, so they seek out convenient, low-cost foods. This often means a manufactured food product. Being manufactured, such products are specifically engineered, with laboratory testing, to make a product as tasty and compelling to eat (and thus buy) as possible. As we all know, low-calore diet food usually isn't nearly as tasty as the "good stuff". Consequently it is not surprising to me that even though manufactured food products do vary widely in calorie density (rice cakes anyone?), when people are buying convenient food that tastes good, they are probably buying something that is calorie dense.

I submit that most people don't bother counting calories until and unless they find they have a weight problem. Most people probably eat by finding they are hungry, finding something convenient, cheap, and tasty to eat, and eating it until they are hungry. That's probably going to result in a calorie surplus over time.

lindsey1979

I mean, hell, some product brands are absolutely blatant and explicit about this intention for their product design. Case in point: Lays potato chips' motto: "Betcha can't eat just one!" The product was designed to be uncontrollably consumed.

Wait...are you saying that these companies, whose purpose is to produce food for a profit, actually try to make their products taste good?

It's a crazy world.

Of course they mean to taste good, but it oftentimes goes beyond that. Where additives are added not for palatability but to actually increase appetite, drive cravings or operate in an addictive manner (lighting up the areas of the brain that are similar to drugs of abuse). It's not coincidence. Food manufacturers, fast food, etc. spent a lot of money looking into ways to increase their bottom line.

maillemaker

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.

If you can take or leave naan, then you aren't addicted to it. If you want to stop eating naan and you can't, you might have an addiction problem. By definition, addictive behavior is behavior that you want to control but can't.

This link was provided earlier and I think it's a good synopsis:

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

LiminalAscendance

I mean, hell, some product brands are absolutely blatant and explicit about this intention for their product design. Case in point: Lays potato chips' motto: "Betcha can't eat just one!" The product was designed to be uncontrollably consumed.

Wait...are you saying that these companies, whose purpose is to produce food for a profit, actually try to make their products taste good?

It's a crazy world.

Drug manufacturers have done their best to increase the efficacy of pain killers and at one time speedy appetite suppressants. We know why and we agree on many drugs having great power to heal and/or make life better, but we also know that coca is far less addictive than the concentrated, processed form known as cocaine. So your point is fine, but doesn't invalidate maillemaker's point in the least.

Can you please tell me what's in potato chips (or any legal food, for that matter) that is comparable to cocaine?

I'm not one of the "you need to eat junk food" crowd, but this is a bit over the top.

Meerataila

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.)

Yes, manufactured food products *do* vary in calorie content. But the very tasty ones typically are high in calorie content.

Look, the majority of Americans are overweight. There is a reason for this. Part of it is that we are not as physically active as we used to be, but caloric expenditure is only a small part of the daily calorie balance. Most of your calorie balance is determined by what you eat.

My feeling is that the American food supply is what has changed. And it's not just America - it is the rest of the developing world, too.

What I think has happened is that modern people are pressed for time and money, so they seek out convenient, low-cost foods. This often means a manufactured food product. Being manufactured, such products are specifically engineered, with laboratory testing, to make a product as tasty and compelling to eat (and thus buy) as possible. As we all know, low-calore diet food usually isn't nearly as tasty as the "good stuff". Consequently it is not surprising to me that even though manufactured food products do vary widely in calorie density (rice cakes anyone?), when people are buying convenient food that tastes good, they are probably buying something that is calorie dense.

I submit that most people don't bother counting calories until and unless they find they have a weight problem. Most people probably eat by finding they are hungry, finding something convenient, cheap, and tasty to eat, and eating it until they are hungry. That's probably going to result in a calorie surplus over time.

I agree. On top of that, from what I've been reading, food that has to travel a long way and sit on a shelf without rotting has fiber removed and flavoring such as sugar added. Then there was the whole low fat craze, which meant adding more sugar.