Moderation DOES NOT WORK for me
Options
Replies
-
Do whatever works for you.
There are some true statements regarding moderation, but sometimes it's better to simply avoid. Ask an alcoholic - some can manage one drink here and there. Some need complete dry regimes. No, you can't stop eating, but you can avoid supplying yourself with sabotaging foods.
In my case - nuts and cereal. Yeah, they are "healthy" alternatives (e.g. Go Lean instead of reese piece cereal). Doesn't do much good when the whole thing gets downed. Yes, I've eaten 300 g of nuts at once - that's more than 1,000 calories. I've always had issues like these, when I was a kid if I wanted a banana I would eat a bunch of 7 fruits. Ugh.
And no, I'm not massively obese, but I'm still learning which coping mechanisms work for me. As I became a parent and got changes in routine, less free time, etc. the old ones have proven ineffective.
Try and keep trying! What else? Give up?0 -
For me and many people I know, the best way and the only way initially, is to totally avoid the sugar.
I don't think the OP said anything about sugar. She said "junk food" and then specifically identified pizza.
More significantly, she also hasn't said (contra a lot of people here arguing against "moderation") that abstaining works for her. She, in fact, said she can't abstain any more than she can do moderation. Thus, this is not about moderation vs. some other model. It's an "I can't."There are many articles out there by reputable sources that sugar/carbs are addicting because of the response it causes in your brain.
Not really. But if you can't eat just one carrot, I agree, don't eat them.0 -
So you say that moderation does not work for you, okay, being overweight does not work for me. I've kept down my weight for 9 years now, and yes it's hard, yes I have constant fights with the voices in my head (just one more, just one more), yes I have a hard time stopping at 1 cookie or at just a handful of chips, or one piece of pizza, and yes, I live in a household that has all those goodies in the house on a daily basis. Again you say moderation does not work for you, hey, that's your decision. Being overweight does not work for me, that's my decisions.0
-
YOU WEAR THE FOOD, THE FOOD DOES NOT WEAR YOU.
I feel like out side of chocolate syrup I'm not entirely sure I understand this sentence.0 -
I think that this thread is about distorted thinking.
When I started to eat at a calorie deficit, I limited my potato chip consumption because I believed that I was incapable of eating a reasonable portion. I also told myself lots of other lies about myself to sabotage my efforts and encourage my belief that this won’t work for me. The potato chip lie was the easiest one to perpetuate because all I had to do was eat the whole bag compulsively when it was put in front of me to reinforce my lie. If I had used words like detox and addiction in relation to my potato chip habit, I would have only strengthened my belief.
It helped to change my thinking. As I started to feel successful, my distorted thinking became less of an issue and I started to think that I was actually successful . When I was eating at a deficit I still lost weight even on those weeks when I ate a small portion of potato chips or even overdid it. This made me realize that the potato chips were not causing my problem, but my thinking was. I also learned that I could eat them now and then without needing to eat them every day. I wasn’t addicted. I just like them.
I’m glad I didn’t think I had a sugar addiction, because this is often discussed in the media. It would be much more difficult to change my thinking if every time I turned around, my distorted thinking was confirmed by other people.
Something else I have learned about my potato chip issue is that if I eat adequate amounts of fat and protein in the day I don’t go as wild. Honestly, if I don’t eat properly for the greater part of the day, I’ll easily eat six rice crispy squares.0 -
Between your previous comment about how there is only one correct relationship with food (and it includes eating for mental and emotional reasons) and this one about how you refused rice cakes because they were unclean, it seems like that you may have had and may continue to have some serious issues with food.
I agree. That makes no sense. MFP is the only fitness/health website I've seen with such backwards thinking. And people that are proud of it. As if there is only one path to success. Mind boggling.
It's not backwards thinking, it's logical thinking. Many people wind up losing weight and then putting it back on, then embark on the cycle again... usually many times. MFP is filled with people who failed to maintain, often because they used a fad method to lose weight: eliminating foods, eating too few calories and messing up their metabolism, assuming exercise is for weight loss and thus stop exercising once they reach their goals but don't lessen how much food they eat to ensure they are not eating above their new/lower TDEE.
So instead of going about weight loss as being a "diet," you go about it as being a time to lose some fat. And the way to do that is to eat less food, not to restrict what you eat. Many people embark on a "clean" diet but don't stick to it forever because it can be very frustrating and stressful. When I used to "eat clean," I didn't even eat rice cakes because I deemed them to be unclean. But like.. it's just rice and water. I demonized foods, I was always worried at restaurants about what I could eat, and if I did happen to indulge in something "forbidden," I often overdid it.
It's much easier to eat a lifestyle than it is to eat a diet. So if you know you'll always and forever "eat clean" then that's your lifestyle, not your diet. THankfully there are people on the MFP forums who have lost lots of weight and kept it off with this flexible/moderation approach to eating, and are trying to get more people to understand that diet =/= eating only acceptable foods.
If what you're doing now is working for you, great! Keep it up!!!! No way I'd suggest you change anything.
You might, though, consider seeking a therapist who could help you work through your possible food issues. One who specializes in eating disorders would be a great idea. I'm not saying you have an eating disorder, but that kind of therapist will understand food issues.
It sounds like you've found a nice groove and I'm really happy for you!
But you may have a little way left to go.
I hope this doesn't freak you out and make you angry or anxious. I'm not trying to be condescending, but helpful. Take it or leave it, but I mean no harm and wish you well.
Yes, i had issues with food.. when I demonized food as being good or bad. Now I categorize food as being sweet, savoury, light, satisfying, filling, gross, heavy, etc. Once food stopped being clean or dirty, it just became food, and I eat whatever I want as long as I am meeting my protein minimums.
Healthy relationship to food means that when you eat you are emotionally and physically and mentally satisfied. Many people post about frustrations with their diet, usually because they are being very restrictive. This has not been an issue for me for quite some time. It appears that you clearly have not comprehended many of my posts nor taken a look at my diary.0 -
I think that this thread is about distorted thinking.
When I started to eat at a calorie deficit, I limited my potato chip consumption because I believed that I was incapable of eating a reasonable portion. I also told myself lots of other lies about myself to sabotage my efforts and encourage my belief that this won’t work for me. The potato chip lie was the easiest one to perpetuate because all I had to do was eat the whole bag compulsively when it was put in front of me to reinforce my lie. If I had used words like detox and addiction in relation to my potato chip habit, I would have only strengthened my belief.
It helped to change my thinking. As I started to feel successful, my distorted thinking became less of an issue and I started to think that I was actually successful . When I was eating at a deficit I still lost weight even on those weeks when I ate a small portion of potato chips or even overdid it. This made me realize that the potato chips were not causing my problem, but my thinking was. I also learned that I could eat them now and then without needing to eat them every day. I wasn’t addicted. I just like them.
I’m glad I didn’t think I had a sugar addiction, because this is often discussed in the media. It would be much more difficult to change my thinking if every time I turned around, my distorted thinking was confirmed by other people.
Something else I have learned about my potato chip issue is that if I eat adequate amounts of fat and protein in the day I don’t go as wild. Honestly, if I don’t eat properly for the greater part of the day, I’ll easily eat six rice crispy squares.
This is the most sober and intelligent and rational thing I have read in these forums all day!!
0 -
Self control and moderation is like any muscle. It only gets stronger if you exercise it.0
-
I think that this thread is about distorted thinking.
When I started to eat at a calorie deficit, I limited my potato chip consumption because I believed that I was incapable of eating a reasonable portion. I also told myself lots of other lies about myself to sabotage my efforts and encourage my belief that this won’t work for me. The potato chip lie was the easiest one to perpetuate because all I had to do was eat the whole bag compulsively when it was put in front of me to reinforce my lie. If I had used words like detox and addiction in relation to my potato chip habit, I would have only strengthened my belief.
It helped to change my thinking. As I started to feel successful, my distorted thinking became less of an issue and I started to think that I was actually successful . When I was eating at a deficit I still lost weight even on those weeks when I ate a small portion of potato chips or even overdid it. This made me realize that the potato chips were not causing my problem, but my thinking was. I also learned that I could eat them now and then without needing to eat them every day. I wasn’t addicted. I just like them.
I’m glad I didn’t think I had a sugar addiction, because this is often discussed in the media. It would be much more difficult to change my thinking if every time I turned around, my distorted thinking was confirmed by other people.
Something else I have learned about my potato chip issue is that if I eat adequate amounts of fat and protein in the day I don’t go as wild. Honestly, if I don’t eat properly for the greater part of the day, I’ll easily eat six rice crispy squares.
This is the most sober and intelligent and rational thing I have read in these forums all day!!
I agree. Great post.0 -
I like to count it before I eat it. Especially if it sounds really yummy. This puts it into perspective and gives me the motivation to exercise moderation. With that said, I don't make any food off limits as long as I'm willing to log it. I love food too so I put in the extra effort to burn calories and give myself the extra room for desert or that extra slice of pizza I enjoy so much. Count your calories accurately and MFP will help you with the numbers in order to remain accountable.
This is a good approach if you use MFP's net calorie method. I don't use exercise to give myself the room to squeeze in an extra dessert, but exercise means that I naturally have more room to eat more food while still losing weight. And if I know I'm going to want to eat something pretty high calorie, I will log it beforehand and then go about my day, super easy!
YOU WEAR THE FOOD, THE FOOD DOES NOT WEAR YOU.
Very true. In fact, normally I wouldn't eat my exercise either. But when I'm at the end of the day and really want that one more thing the extra calories are nice to have around. A good rule of thumb I like to use is to not eat more than half of my exercise calories if I do end up eating any.0 -
Detox? You must be joking, right?
Permanent palate changes are fine and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, but people's tastes and cravings can also come and go. It's not a matter of a specific food unless there is a desire for it. As I said above, I don't eat much candy because I generally don't like it, and I can go long periods without sweets, but when I want it I eat a portion and call it a day. It's simply a matter of making sustainable changes by ovoiding overly ambitious goals.
I don't think detox is a bad way to look at it, especially with sugar. If a person is eating a lot of highly processed foods, there is likely a lot of added, unnecessary sugar there -- and for good reason because it increases palatability and induces cravings, making people want to eat more and more of it. Manufacturers don't add it for other reasons. It increases their bottom line, period.
And when people cut out or cut back on those sorts of food, their tolerance for sugar likewise reduces. It is common that they find lower sugar item things far more satisfying, less amounts of the same previous item satisfying (sort of the basis for the moderation argument) and often many of the previous high sugar foods too sweet because their palate has shifted. This is a fairly common phenomenon. That sure looks like detox to me.
Are you saying that sugar is a toxin? Or simply that it tastes particularly good and that people need to find ways to eat less of it because it is high in calories?
I wouldn't say sugar is a toxin. It has very good uses. In times of famine, it's invaluable. But in times of plenty, like we see in modern times, it can be a detriment. Too much of it isn't a good thing (just like almost anything) and can lead to overeating because of the tolerance built up from constant exposure/stimulation.
I'd say if they're looking for pure calories -- like they're struggling to get a certain amount of calories in during a bulk, sugar can be very helpful in that regard (though fat is probably better since it's more calorie dense). But if they're looking to lose/maintain weight, as most here on MFP are, then it's something that likely needs to be looked at with a more cautious stance.
I think the big issue for me personally is that a lot of highly processed foods have a lot of added, unnecessary sugar. And some types of sugar are more damaging than others (HFCS is a good example since fructose has more detrimental effects on the metabolism and body chemistry for those looking to create a caloric deficit). An average soda has something like 8-11 teaspoons of sugar, right? And you couldn't even put that much sugar into 12 oz. of water because it would settle out because it's past the saturation point. So they had to develop something with a higher saturation point -- enter HFCS. That's pretty impressive.
The literature I've read recently contradicts what you say about HFCS being different, but it doesn't matter to me because I don't eat much of it anyway. If you find yourself eating way too much sugar then sure you need to cut it down, but the whole point of moderation is just that, cutting back but not to the point of elimination, at least if it's something you crave. If you need to eliminate something temporarily, then go with it, particularly if it helps you learn over time how to moderate intake.0 -
So you say that moderation does not work for you, okay, being overweight does not work for me. I've kept down my weight for 9 years now, and yes it's hard, yes I have constant fights with the voices in my head (just one more, just one more), yes I have a hard time stopping at 1 cookie or at just a handful of chips, or one piece of pizza, and yes, I live in a household that has all those goodies in the house on a daily basis. Again you say moderation does not work for you, hey, that's your decision. Being overweight does not work for me, that's my decisions.
See, it's posts like this that baffle me. The post was not an attack against what works for you! It's a plea for solutions other than moderation.
Sure, some have offered up other moderation-based solutions to see if the poster has tried that (i.e. eat as much of what you love just on a very infrequent basis vs. a tiny sliver of it daily). But why some poster come on here defending moderation as if it's under attack is just baffling to me.0 -
You are going to hear a lot of people say that you can eat whatever you want in moderation.
I won't be one of those people.
For an addict, generally it is an all-or-nothing approach because the chance of relapse is too high. Thus at alcoholics anonymous they tell you that you are only one drink away from being an alcoholic again. Now there are some new trains of thought that say that a moderation approach may work better, but generally speaking, recovering addicts completely abstain from their behavior because they lack the self-control to moderate their behavior.
The problem with food addiction is that we have no choice but to eat. You take your addiction out three times a day and play with it.
If there are foods that you cannot exercise self-control over and not over-eat, then you are probably best avoiding those foods altogether.
When I crack open a tube of Thin Mints, I'm going to eat the whole thing. In fact, I'll probably eat the entire box in one sitting without batting an eye. For me, the best course of action is not to have them around at all. If I start playing with fire - buying the box of cookies, opening the box of cookies, opening the tube of cookies, taking out a couple of cookies, eating and savoring a couple of cookies - it is far to easy to just eat "just one more" and before you know it you've eaten the whole box.0 -
Here's the thing, it's an uphill battle for all of us with very poor odds in our collective favor that we'll keep the weight off.
You could eliminate all your trouble foods, run into deprivation, spiral out of control once you let them back in, and regain weight.
Another scenario?
You keep those foods in, learn some degree of moderation, but eventually you slip slowly back into eating a bit more, and more, and more until you're back to overconsumption and you regain weight.
There are pros and cons to both. The issue is when the majority of posters talk about the "treat a day" approach as if it has no drawbacks, as if people don't massively fail at moderation all the time.
For some people moderation works best.
For some people elimination works best.
Pick your battle.0 -
Detox? You must be joking, right?
Permanent palate changes are fine and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, but people's tastes and cravings can also come and go. It's not a matter of a specific food unless there is a desire for it. As I said above, I don't eat much candy because I generally don't like it, and I can go long periods without sweets, but when I want it I eat a portion and call it a day. It's simply a matter of making sustainable changes by ovoiding overly ambitious goals.
I don't think detox is a bad way to look at it, especially with sugar. If a person is eating a lot of highly processed foods, there is likely a lot of added, unnecessary sugar there -- and for good reason because it increases palatability and induces cravings, making people want to eat more and more of it. Manufacturers don't add it for other reasons. It increases their bottom line, period.
And when people cut out or cut back on those sorts of food, their tolerance for sugar likewise reduces. It is common that they find lower sugar item things far more satisfying, less amounts of the same previous item satisfying (sort of the basis for the moderation argument) and often many of the previous high sugar foods too sweet because their palate has shifted. This is a fairly common phenomenon. That sure looks like detox to me.
Are you saying that sugar is a toxin? Or simply that it tastes particularly good and that people need to find ways to eat less of it because it is high in calories?
I wouldn't say sugar is a toxin. It has very good uses. In times of famine, it's invaluable. But in times of plenty, like we see in modern times, it can be a detriment. Too much of it isn't a good thing (just like almost anything) and can lead to overeating because of the tolerance built up from constant exposure/stimulation.
I'd say if they're looking for pure calories -- like they're struggling to get a certain amount of calories in during a bulk, sugar can be very helpful in that regard (though fat is probably better since it's more calorie dense). But if they're looking to lose/maintain weight, as most here on MFP are, then it's something that likely needs to be looked at with a more cautious stance.
I think the big issue for me personally is that a lot of highly processed foods have a lot of added, unnecessary sugar. And some types of sugar are more damaging than others (HFCS is a good example since fructose has more detrimental effects on the metabolism and body chemistry for those looking to create a caloric deficit). An average soda has something like 8-11 teaspoons of sugar, right? And you couldn't even put that much sugar into 12 oz. of water because it would settle out because it's past the saturation point. So they had to develop something with a higher saturation point -- enter HFCS. That's pretty impressive.
The literature I've read recently contradicts what you say about HFCS being different, but it doesn't matter to me because I don't eat much of it anyway. If you find yourself eating way too much sugar then sure you need to cut it down, but the whole point of moderation is just that, cutting back but not to the point of elimination, at least if it's something you crave. If you need to eliminate something temporarily, then go with it, particularly if it helps you learn over time how to moderate intake.
I guess it depends on what literature you're reading. I've read literature that talks about HFCS being no different essentially than a lot of other sweeteners as it usually only contains slightly more fructose than other sweeteners (and most have a hard time digesting too much pure fructose which is why it's usually in combination with sucrose as seen in HFCS). It's also a cheaper option than sucrose from cane sugar, also important to manufacturer's bottomline. But I'm pretty sure that given its higher saturation point, it allows manufacturers to pump more fructose and sucrose into things like coke and other products than would be possible with cane sugar/sucrose alone.
So I guess it depends on what aspect of HFCS you're reading about.0 -
I agree. That makes no sense. MFP is the only fitness/health website I've seen with such backwards thinking. And people that are proud of it. As if there is only one path to success. Mind boggling.
It's not backwards thinking, it's logical thinking. Many people wind up losing weight and then putting it back on, then embark on the cycle again... usually many times. MFP is filled with people who failed to maintain, often because they used a fad method to lose weight: eliminating foods, eating too few calories and messing up their metabolism, assuming exercise is for weight loss and thus stop exercising once they reach their goals but don't lessen how much food they eat to ensure they are not eating above their new/lower TDEE.
So instead of going about weight loss as being a "diet," you go about it as being a time to lose some fat. And the way to do that is to eat less food, not to restrict what you eat. Many people embark on a "clean" diet but don't stick to it forever because it can be very frustrating and stressful. When I used to "eat clean," I didn't even eat rice cakes because I deemed them to be unclean. But like.. it's just rice and water. I demonized foods, I was always worried at restaurants about what I could eat, and if I did happen to indulge in something "forbidden," I often overdid it.
It's much easier to eat a lifestyle than it is to eat a diet. So if you know you'll always and forever "eat clean" then that's your lifestyle, not your diet. THankfully there are people on the MFP forums who have lost lots of weight and kept it off with this flexible/moderation approach to eating, and are trying to get more people to understand that diet =/= eating only acceptable foods.
Well, it's sort of strange to think that you need to eat those kinds of foods regularly just to prove something. I'm okay with no longer eating a daily marshmallow fluff sandwich. And I am okay with the idea of never eating one again because I don't need to. I'm not hungry for it. Lots of people live happy, fulfilled lives without marshmallow fluff sandwiches.
But, it isn't as if I will never eat a cookie again or something like that, but it won't be on my grocery list because it doesn't need to be. A lifestyle doesn't need to include cakes and cookies if the individual doesn't want it to. To each, their own.
The point is to avoid extremes. If you can cut out sweets completely and not feel deprived, then fine, no one is saying you shouldn't do that. The concern is for those who cut them out but do feel deprived because it's hard to live an ascetic lifestyle and it can lead to the binge/diet cycle that so many are familiar with. Again, if you don't feel deprived then no problem, but if you can't eat one of something without binging then I have my doubts, and perhaps, just perhaps, you may want to listen.
What? Listen...to you? I respected your opinion. But, I think I'm going to enjoy choosing to eat in a way that works for me. I don't need your instructions or your faux-care warnings. You don't know me or my lifestyle. I never said I cut out sweets completely, never did I say that. Heavy sigh.
My post was basically to say to each, their own. I'm not going to rag on people who would prefer to not eat candy on a regular basis nor am I going to rag on people who like their evening ben and jerry's. (Note: I belong to neither of these. I can eat a piece of candy, but it's just not going to be on my grocery list because it doesn't need to be). TO EACH THEIR OWN.
And also, binge eating really has more to do with emotions, poor coping mechanisms, etc than it does with the food. People who binge (like, genuinely, have the eating disorder) don't need cookies in order to binge. They can binge on anything even if it doesn't taste good.
*Also, maybe this is because my family doesn't come from the US and thus doesn't eat the standard American diet (which is cool, not ragging on the standard American diet, and if the following comes across that way, know that I was born and raised in the US and I apologize and you can most certainly send me a PM), but eating ice cream every day or having regular desserts just isn't part of the culture. Sweets are saved for special occasions, children, or just for fun times. <--this is how I have chosen to approach sweets because it works for me.
Did you actually read the words on the page stating IF you can't avoid BINGING then PERHAPS you MIGHT want to listen, or were just looking to feign offense? Keep heavy sighing, and whatever you're doing. I certainly wasn't pretending to care all that much.
Also, lol at the constant mention of SAD, as I'm pretty sure that very few successful recomps are done on SAD. Of course, then you mention how you eat treats in moderation, after telling me you'll do it your way, and clearly missing any point that has been made.
Best of luck. I'm going to pretend it's an ESL issue and move along now. :flowerforyou:0 -
No, lol, I haven't read your food diary. Everyone on the planet can rest assured that I don't read their food diaries. For me, it would feel weird. But other people have their hobbies!! Whatever floats your boat.
Between your previous comment about how there is only one correct relationship with food (and it includes eating for mental and emotional reasons) and this one about how you refused rice cakes because they were unclean, it seems like that you may have had and may continue to have some serious issues with food.
I agree. That makes no sense. MFP is the only fitness/health website I've seen with such backwards thinking. And people that are proud of it. As if there is only one path to success. Mind boggling.
It's not backwards thinking, it's logical thinking. Many people wind up losing weight and then putting it back on, then embark on the cycle again... usually many times. MFP is filled with people who failed to maintain, often because they used a fad method to lose weight: eliminating foods, eating too few calories and messing up their metabolism, assuming exercise is for weight loss and thus stop exercising once they reach their goals but don't lessen how much food they eat to ensure they are not eating above their new/lower TDEE.
So instead of going about weight loss as being a "diet," you go about it as being a time to lose some fat. And the way to do that is to eat less food, not to restrict what you eat. Many people embark on a "clean" diet but don't stick to it forever because it can be very frustrating and stressful. When I used to "eat clean," I didn't even eat rice cakes because I deemed them to be unclean. But like.. it's just rice and water. I demonized foods, I was always worried at restaurants about what I could eat, and if I did happen to indulge in something "forbidden," I often overdid it.
It's much easier to eat a lifestyle than it is to eat a diet. So if you know you'll always and forever "eat clean" then that's your lifestyle, not your diet. THankfully there are people on the MFP forums who have lost lots of weight and kept it off with this flexible/moderation approach to eating, and are trying to get more people to understand that diet =/= eating only acceptable foods.
If what you're doing now is working for you, great! Keep it up!!!! No way I'd suggest you change anything.
You might, though, consider seeking a therapist who could help you work through your possible food issues. One who specializes in eating disorders would be a great idea. I'm not saying you have an eating disorder, but that kind of therapist will understand food issues.
It sounds like you've found a nice groove and I'm really happy for you! But you may have a little way left to go.
I hope this doesn't freak you out and make you angry or anxious. I'm not trying to be condescending, but helpful. Take it or leave it, but I mean no harm and wish you well.
Yes, i had issues with food.. when I demonized food as being good or bad. Now I categorize food as being sweet, savoury, light, satisfying, filling, gross, heavy, etc. Once food stopped being clean or dirty, it just became food, and I eat whatever I want as long as I am meeting my protein minimums.
Healthy relationship to food means that when you eat you are emotionally and physically and mentally satisfied. Many people post about frustrations with their diet, usually because they are being very restrictive. This has not been an issue for me for quite some time. It appears that you clearly have not comprehended many of my posts nor taken a look at my diary.
If you don't wish to discuss any of it with a therapist, that is your call. You have to do what you think is best for you. 0 -
Detox? You must be joking, right?
Permanent palate changes are fine and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, but people's tastes and cravings can also come and go. It's not a matter of a specific food unless there is a desire for it. As I said above, I don't eat much candy because I generally don't like it, and I can go long periods without sweets, but when I want it I eat a portion and call it a day. It's simply a matter of making sustainable changes by ovoiding overly ambitious goals.
I don't think detox is a bad way to look at it, especially with sugar. If a person is eating a lot of highly processed foods, there is likely a lot of added, unnecessary sugar there -- and for good reason because it increases palatability and induces cravings, making people want to eat more and more of it. Manufacturers don't add it for other reasons. It increases their bottom line, period.
And when people cut out or cut back on those sorts of food, their tolerance for sugar likewise reduces. It is common that they find lower sugar item things far more satisfying, less amounts of the same previous item satisfying (sort of the basis for the moderation argument) and often many of the previous high sugar foods too sweet because their palate has shifted. This is a fairly common phenomenon. That sure looks like detox to me.
Are you saying that sugar is a toxin? Or simply that it tastes particularly good and that people need to find ways to eat less of it because it is high in calories?
I wouldn't say sugar is a toxin. It has very good uses. In times of famine, it's invaluable. But in times of plenty, like we see in modern times, it can be a detriment. Too much of it isn't a good thing (just like almost anything) and can lead to overeating because of the tolerance built up from constant exposure/stimulation.
I'd say if they're looking for pure calories -- like they're struggling to get a certain amount of calories in during a bulk, sugar can be very helpful in that regard (though fat is probably better since it's more calorie dense). But if they're looking to lose/maintain weight, as most here on MFP are, then it's something that likely needs to be looked at with a more cautious stance.
I think the big issue for me personally is that a lot of highly processed foods have a lot of added, unnecessary sugar. And some types of sugar are more damaging than others (HFCS is a good example since fructose has more detrimental effects on the metabolism and body chemistry for those looking to create a caloric deficit). An average soda has something like 8-11 teaspoons of sugar, right? And you couldn't even put that much sugar into 12 oz. of water because it would settle out because it's past the saturation point. So they had to develop something with a higher saturation point -- enter HFCS. That's pretty impressive.
The literature I've read recently contradicts what you say about HFCS being different, but it doesn't matter to me because I don't eat much of it anyway. If you find yourself eating way too much sugar then sure you need to cut it down, but the whole point of moderation is just that, cutting back but not to the point of elimination, at least if it's something you crave. If you need to eliminate something temporarily, then go with it, particularly if it helps you learn over time how to moderate intake.
I guess it depends on what literature you're reading. I've read literature that talks about HFCS being no different essentially than a lot of other sweeteners as it usually only contains slightly more fructose than other sweeteners (and most have a hard time digesting too much pure fructose which is why it's usually in combination with sucrose as seen in HFCS). It's also a cheaper option than sucrose from cane sugar, also important to manufacturer's bottomline. But I'm pretty sure that given its higher saturation point, it allows manufacturers to pump more fructose and sucrose into things like coke and other products than would be possible with cane sugar/sucrose alone.
So I guess it depends on what aspect of HFCS you're reading about.
I'll dig them up as they're pretty recent, but I drink Diet Coke when I drink sodas so it's not something that affects me all that much. The sugar I consume is in things like donuts and ice cream so it's very moderate amounts. I usually find that if I hit my protein and fat macros, and eat enough vegetables and whole grains to hit my fiber goals, that I just don't have all that many calories left over for things like ice cream and donuts, and I prefer beer.0 -
I guess it depends on what literature you're reading. I've read literature that talks about HFCS being no different essentially than a lot of other sweeteners as it usually only contains slightly more fructose than other sweeteners (and most have a hard time digesting too much pure fructose which is why it's usually in combination with sucrose as seen in HFCS). It's also a cheaper option than sucrose from cane sugar, also important to manufacturer's bottomline. But I'm pretty sure that given its higher saturation point, it allows manufacturers to pump more fructose and sucrose into things like coke and other products than would be possible with cane sugar/sucrose alone.
So I guess it depends on what aspect of HFCS you're reading about.
I'll dig them up as they're pretty recent, but I drink Diet Coke when I drink sodas so it's not something that affects me all that much. The sugar I consume is in things like donuts and ice cream so it's very moderate amounts. I usually find that if I hit my protein and fat macros, and eat enough vegetables and whole grains to hit my fiber goals, that I just don't have all that many calories left over for things like ice cream and donuts, and I prefer beer.
Thank you. I'd really appreciate that. I think there is a lot more research out there to be done and I'm sure I haven't read it all.
Here is one that I came across a while ago from Princeton that I thought presented some interesting findings in rats -- that those that ate a diet with HFCS gained considerable more weight than those that ate the same calories of sucrose, and the level of HFCS was about half of what you see in regular soda. Part of the talk is the extra metabolic step that has to be done with sucrose than HFCS -- the fructose in HFCS is free/unbound unlike the fructose in sucrose. There are other interesting findings, but at the very least it seems to indicate that not all calories are equal and there seems to be something specifically different about HFCS.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
Also, from the article and apropos to our earlier detox discussion:
"The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse."0 -
It really doesn't have to be a self control struggle (although some of it is necessary).
See, dieting is a constant mind game, and to win you need the right arsenal of tricks and attacks that work for you. For some, totally avoiding the food is a valid choice if it doesn't leave them miserable, and it requires a few strategies. For those that feel unhappy restricting and would just throw the towel a few days in it would be a horrible trick.
I think of my cravings as a moody child throwing a tantrum. You can try to convince them, distract them, trick them, stand your ground, compromise a little, or give in. I mentioned this earlier but did not go into details. What dialogue runs in my head when I want pizza and I don't have enough calories to allocate for a big portion for example?
- I want pizza
- No! You have already eaten too much today. We don't have enough calories for it. Sometimes I have enough willpower to say no, but other times I don't
- I don't care, pizza now or I'll make your day miserable.
- Are you sure? What if it's just a passing thought? You will regret it if you have it but you didn't really want it. Sometimes it stops there, but other times...
15 minutes later...
- Nop, it's not a passing thought. I want pizza.
- Tell you what, let's watch this movie we've been dying to watch. Pizza can wait. Sometimes it stops there, but other times..
After the movie...
- Loved the movie, but I want pizza!
- What is it you're craving? Is it really the pizza or the cheese? What do you think of zucchini boats with a cheese topping? Sometimes the desire of having another dish I love overpowers the desire for pizza, but other times...
- Yes, I love these, but I want pizza.
- Do you really want to have a full meal of pizza or is it the taste that you crave? What if we had a bowl of broth based soup, a big salad, and a slice of pizza? You would feel so full you will not be able to eat more than one anyway. This is the trick that usually does it for me, but it doesn't really work for things like chocolate or if I REALLY want to have a big amount.
- No. I would feel sad if I don't eat at least 3 slices.
- Fine. Let's exercise extra today, or have our oatmeal with water instead of milk, and keep lunch light to save up enough calories for 2 slices Sometimes that's all it takes, but other times..
After eating the 2 slices...
- I had the 2 slices but I want more. I don't care if we don't have enough calories, I want it so bad I will keep nagging you until you go crazy.
- Fine. Let's eat at maintenance today. Eat as much as you want but try not to go overboard. This is usually the farthest it gets, but on a few occasions it would go like this...
- Now way I'm settling for just the pizza. It's a party and I also want ice cream, chocolate, and a cinnamon roll.
- Sight.. I guess that's that. What's done is done and tomorrow is a new day. We could try taking away 100 or so calories every day for the next week or so if we can. If we can't, no big deal. One day over maintenance will not make me gain back all the pounds I've lost0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions