Moderation DOES NOT WORK for me

klaff411

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?

Don't buy it. Don't keep it around. If your family does, you just eat something else. That means buying your own groceries. If they have pizza, you make yourself something.

Also, you gotta have willpower to say no. Once you stop eating that crap you won't want it anymore.

lemurcat12

The first day I began tracking sugar, I nearly reached my limit with breakfast. Most of that was grapes, raisins and strawberries. I stopped tracking it very quickly, lol.

I never realized what a seasonal eater I am until I was tracking here. I started in March and for the first couple of months I couldn't figure out how people thought it was so easy to go over sugar, as I was never close. But I LOVE summer fruit and now I'm constantly close or over based on fruit also, or would be if I bothered about it. (Dairy also adds up, and although people like to blame sweetened yogurt the fact is that there's plenty in plain also, because lactose.)

lindsey1979

So if you're eating a lot of added sugar, you're probably eating a lot of highly processed foods (you don't tend to see people just eating spoonfuls of sugar as a general rule).

Well, I wouldn't assume that anyone who eats sugar "in moderation" eats "lots" of added sugar, necessarily. The debates around here seem to focus on no added sugar vs. moderation, after all.

And of course people don't eat spoonfuls of sugar (well, some put it in oatmeal or a hot beverage, I suppose), but a common way to eat sugar is, presumably, to bake things, yes?

I wouldn't necessarily assume that either. I think some that eat in moderation do eat a lot of highly processed foods with added sugar and some don't. The moderation isn't solely focused on the highly processed food category, if at all. Some go by pure macros and calories. Many different ways to skin that cat. To me those are different arguments, but I believe that's where the overlap is or people see a certain possible relationship.

I see the debate here mostly being about moderation vs. elimination, both of which I think are completely valid strategies. And the added sugar issue is just an example of how it could be applied to in both moderation and elimination (i.e. eating added sugar foods in moderation or eliminating them).

Kalikel

And of course people don't eat spoonfuls of sugar (well, some put it in oatmeal or a hot beverage, I suppose), but a common way to eat sugar is, presumably, to bake things, yes?

Also when taking medicine. Or so I've heard.

MelodyandBarbells

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.

???

It's the beauty of a forum post, you'll get various view points. I don't necessarily agree with the approach they described but thoroughly enjoyed reading about the issue from her perspective

MelodyandBarbells

There have been multiple comments on having a problem if I can't just have a small portion and be done. But if I live alone for example, and can control what I have in the house - being either none of the "trigger" items or single serving portions, or only cooking up the amount I want when I need it, what does it matter? Just like I don't have to eat chicken and broccoli for every meal in order to lose weight , I don't see why I have to solve my "problem" if it's not getting in the way of weight loss?

What other problems could people have - not being able to lift heavy weights, not being able to get to the gym as often as they like, not being able to cook all their meals. We can still lose weight despite these problems since all that is necessary to lose weight is a calorie deficit

What does this have to do with the OP who clearly doesn't live alone? Who cares, they never even came back to talk to us

lemurcat12

I see the debate here mostly being about moderation vs. elimination, both of which I think are completely valid strategies.

I also think both are fine strategies, but again I don't think the debate has much if anything to do with the OP.

What gets me is the constant assumption that if you don't cut out "processed" foods or "added sugar" or whatever you are eating all sorts of highly sweetened stuff from the middle of the supermarket (not that there's anything wrong if that if it's what you choose to do and you also eat sufficient other foods to get a balanced nutrient-sufficient diet) and can't taste regular foods since you are so warped by all this hidden sugar that you are eating and probably addicted to. Seems like bunk to me. I mean, sure that might be true for some, but it's hardly the experience of everyone, even everyone who gained a bunch of weight.

SunofaBeach14

I see the debate here mostly being about moderation vs. elimination, both of which I think are completely valid strategies.

I also think both are fine strategies, but again I don't think the debate has much if anything to do with the OP.

What gets me is the constant assumption that if you don't cut out "processed" foods or "added sugar" or whatever you are eating all sorts of highly sweetened stuff from the middle of the supermarket (not that there's anything wrong if that if it's what you choose to do and you also eat sufficient other foods to get a balanced nutrient-sufficient diet) and can't taste regular foods since you are so warped by all this hidden sugar that you are eating and probably addicted to. Seems like bunk to me. I mean, sure that might be true for some, but it's hardly the experience of everyone, even everyone who gained a bunch of weight.

If someone really needs to eliminate foods for whatever reason then okay, but I don't think a person should go from, "damn, I just ate a whole bag of chips" to "holy crap, I'm addicted to chips!" to "I'll never eat chips again!" in one sitting and frankly, that's the impression I got from the OP. Perhaps, actually trying to moderate intake first, over a period of time, should be the first step. It goes with making small, incremental changes that help build habits. On the other hand, if someone has the willpower to actually cut out the foods they crave and be successful for a decade or more, that's dandy, but I'd argue that's rather unusual given the failure rates for diets and the yo-yoing I've witnessed.

nykismile

Hey OP, I dealt with diets for a while and I never learned moderation. I mean, in some ways I did; I know what to limit and what to eat on a daily basis. But I actually indulge in as much food as I want every day because I eat low calorie, high density foods (aka the forbidden "healthy" label)

Yes, calories are calories. Yes, you can eat a surplus of "healthy" food and still gain weight. There's no denying that science, but what I can prove is that when I replaced vegan pizza and ice cream meals with salad, Skinnypop, and more watermelon than you can imagine (yes, I weigh it all on a food scale) I found myself consuming less calories by far. I worked it into an intermittent fasting schedule and continued to measure all my food, and finally broke the plateau I was in.

I love being able to eat as much as I want. People say that what I do is silly since "healthy" food is no different than "unhealthy" food. And it's not calorie wise, but the fiber content makes me full much quicker than processed products laced with additives.

This won't work for everyone (nothing works for everyone) but if you like to overeat, then you might wanna try it. Or not. Do what works for you.

Kalikel

The first day I began tracking sugar, I nearly reached my limit with breakfast. Most of that was grapes, raisins and strawberries. I stopped tracking it very quickly, lol.

I never realized what a seasonal eater I am until I was tracking here. I started in March and for the first couple of months I couldn't figure out how people thought it was so easy to go over sugar, as I was never close. But I LOVE summer fruit and now I'm constantly close or over based on fruit also, or would be if I bothered about it. (Dairy also adds up, and although people like to blame sweetened yogurt the fact is that there's plenty in plain also, because lactose.)

Yogurt. Ugh. Rather eat Fancy Feast. Cottage cheese and milk are about it...and the milk must be snuck in because I'm sure as he'll not drinking it.

I quit tracking the sugar and replaced it with fiber.

Fruit is amazing. I'd honestly rather have a bowl of berries now than a Kit Kat. I just found Dinosaur Eggs and tried them and OH, Yum!

I'm fruit's biggest fan and champion. If the President had a Go Fruit cabinet position, I'd be Secretary. My yearly Go Fruit Parade would be lead by those underwear guys. No bigger fan than me.

Sabine_Stroehm

The first day I began tracking sugar, I nearly reached my limit with breakfast. Most of that was grapes, raisins and strawberries. I stopped tracking it very quickly, lol.

I never realized what a seasonal eater I am until I was tracking here. I started in March and for the first couple of months I couldn't figure out how people thought it was so easy to go over sugar, as I was never close. But I LOVE summer fruit and now I'm constantly close or over based on fruit also, or would be if I bothered about it. (Dairy also adds up, and although people like to blame sweetened yogurt the fact is that there's plenty in plain also, because lactose.)

Yogurt. Ugh. Rather eat Fancy Feast. Cottage cheese and milk are about it...and the milk must be snuck in because I'm sure as he'll not drinking it.

I quit tracking the sugar and replaced it with fiber.

Fruit is amazing. I'd honestly rather have a bowl of berries now than a Kit Kat. I just found Dinosaur Eggs and tried them and OH, Yum!

I'm fruit's biggest fan and champion. If the President had a Go Fruit cabinet position, I'd be Secretary. My yearly Go Fruit Parade would be lead by those underwear guys. No bigger fan than me.

Funny you should say cottage cheese. I'd rather eat frigging rice cakes (which aren't food) than cottage cheese. I do love yogurt...

Sabine_Stroehm

I see the debate here mostly being about moderation vs. elimination, both of which I think are completely valid strategies.

I also think both are fine strategies, but again I don't think the debate has much if anything to do with the OP.

What gets me is the constant assumption that if you don't cut out "processed" foods or "added sugar" or whatever you are eating all sorts of highly sweetened stuff from the middle of the supermarket (not that there's anything wrong if that if it's what you choose to do and you also eat sufficient other foods to get a balanced nutrient-sufficient diet) and can't taste regular foods since you are so warped by all this hidden sugar that you are eating and probably addicted to. Seems like bunk to me. I mean, sure that might be true for some, but it's hardly the experience of everyone, even everyone who gained a bunch of weight.

And what bugs me is the constant assumption that if you choose to eliminate you're doing it wrong. :flowerforyou: Not saying YOU'VE said that, but rather that I see it said often. either the person is wrong, or weak ("lacks self control") or has a problem....

Kalikel

The first day I began tracking sugar, I nearly reached my limit with breakfast. Most of that was grapes, raisins and strawberries. I stopped tracking it very quickly, lol.

I never realized what a seasonal eater I am until I was tracking here. I started in March and for the first couple of months I couldn't figure out how people thought it was so easy to go over sugar, as I was never close. But I LOVE summer fruit and now I'm constantly close or over based on fruit also, or would be if I bothered about it. (Dairy also adds up, and although people like to blame sweetened yogurt the fact is that there's plenty in plain also, because lactose.)

Yogurt. Ugh. Rather eat Fancy Feast. Cottage cheese and milk are about it...and the milk must be snuck in because I'm sure as he'll not drinking it.

I quit tracking the sugar and replaced it with fiber.

Fruit is amazing. I'd honestly rather have a bowl of berries now than a Kit Kat. I just found Dinosaur Eggs and tried them and OH, Yum!

I'm fruit's biggest fan and champion. If the President had a Go Fruit cabinet position, I'd be Secretary. My yearly Go Fruit Parade would be lead by those underwear guys. No bigger fan than me.

Funny you should say cottage cheese. I'd rather eat frigging rice cakes (which aren't food) than cottage cheese. I do love yogurt...

Love cottage cheese, but can see why people get turned off because it does look like curdled milk, lol. I think they must have the same feeling about it that I have about yogurt, so I sympathize.

Tried yogurt. So many times. Regular, flavored, fruit in the bottom, kiddie go-gurt, Greek...just turns my stomach. The smell alone grosses me out. If it goes in, I spit it out. Every time I was really trying to like it - couldn't even swallow it. Disgusts me.

I tasted my cat's food once and I'd literally rather eat that.

But I'm glad it's there for people who like it!!

There are some really good rice cakes. A generic apple-cinnamon one is great and most of the caramel ones are good. I used to hate them, too.

SunofaBeach14

I see the debate here mostly being about moderation vs. elimination, both of which I think are completely valid strategies.

I also think both are fine strategies, but again I don't think the debate has much if anything to do with the OP.

What gets me is the constant assumption that if you don't cut out "processed" foods or "added sugar" or whatever you are eating all sorts of highly sweetened stuff from the middle of the supermarket (not that there's anything wrong if that if it's what you choose to do and you also eat sufficient other foods to get a balanced nutrient-sufficient diet) and can't taste regular foods since you are so warped by all this hidden sugar that you are eating and probably addicted to. Seems like bunk to me. I mean, sure that might be true for some, but it's hardly the experience of everyone, even everyone who gained a bunch of weight.

And what bugs me is the constant assumption that if you choose to eliminate you're doing it wrong. :flowerforyou: Not saying YOU'VE said that, but rather that I see it said often. either the person is wrong, or weak ("lacks self control") or has a problem....

Advising people to try teaching themselves moderation before going to elimination, or suggesting that they eliminate temporarily with the hope of reintroducing them later and, again, learning to eat them in moderation, are not attacks on you personally. It's an approach that works for a good number of people and it's because so many people fail long-term at restrictive diets.

So, to be clear, I would suggest that you are unusual in terms of eliminating foods and being successful over the long term. That said, both methods CAN work, but it's a matter of what works for more people as a deciding factor as to what should be tried first.

So there.

lindsey1979

I see the debate here mostly being about moderation vs. elimination, both of which I think are completely valid strategies.

I also think both are fine strategies, but again I don't think the debate has much if anything to do with the OP.

What gets me is the constant assumption that if you don't cut out "processed" foods or "added sugar" or whatever you are eating all sorts of highly sweetened stuff from the middle of the supermarket (not that there's anything wrong if that if it's what you choose to do and you also eat sufficient other foods to get a balanced nutrient-sufficient diet) and can't taste regular foods since you are so warped by all this hidden sugar that you are eating and probably addicted to. Seems like bunk to me. I mean, sure that might be true for some, but it's hardly the experience of everyone, even everyone who gained a bunch of weight.

And what bugs me is the constant assumption that if you choose to eliminate you're doing it wrong. :flowerforyou: Not saying YOU'VE said that, but rather that I see it said often. either the person is wrong, or weak ("lacks self control") or has a problem....

Advising people to try teaching themselves moderation before going to elimination, or suggesting that they eliminate temporarily with the hope of reintroducing them later and, again, learning to eat them in moderation, are not attacks on you personally. It's an approach that works for a good number of people and it's because so many people fail long-term at restrictive diets.

So, to be clear, I would suggest that you are unusual in terms of eliminating foods and being successful over the long term. That said, both methods CAN work, but it's a matter of what works for more people as a deciding factor as to what should be tried first.

So there.

Generally I agree with you, but when you have situations where the person has specifically said that moderation didn't work for them or they weren't interested in it (for whatever reason), then it seems silly to keep pushing moderation unless you really think they (1) didn't mean what they said or (2) were confused about the concept. But, that happens time and time again around here.

Most folks, whether they follow it or not, acknowledge that moderation is a valid path to weight loss success. However there are several moderation proponents (even on this thread) that seem incapable of understanding that it isn't absolutely necessary for everyone. That there are other valid paths that do not include moderation.

Meerataila

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 lost

AAAAHHH Get out of my HEAD! :laugh:

I find sometimes I can gag my inner brat with enough roughage. But sometimes the little snot just will not shut up. And if I give in an inch, she just gets louder!

Sabine_Stroehm

I see the debate here mostly being about moderation vs. elimination, both of which I think are completely valid strategies.

I also think both are fine strategies, but again I don't think the debate has much if anything to do with the OP.

What gets me is the constant assumption that if you don't cut out "processed" foods or "added sugar" or whatever you are eating all sorts of highly sweetened stuff from the middle of the supermarket (not that there's anything wrong if that if it's what you choose to do and you also eat sufficient other foods to get a balanced nutrient-sufficient diet) and can't taste regular foods since you are so warped by all this hidden sugar that you are eating and probably addicted to. Seems like bunk to me. I mean, sure that might be true for some, but it's hardly the experience of everyone, even everyone who gained a bunch of weight.

And what bugs me is the constant assumption that if you choose to eliminate you're doing it wrong. :flowerforyou: Not saying YOU'VE said that, but rather that I see it said often. either the person is wrong, or weak ("lacks self control") or has a problem....

Advising people to try teaching themselves moderation before going to elimination, or suggesting that they eliminate temporarily with the hope of reintroducing them later and, again, learning to eat them in moderation, are not attacks on you personally. It's an approach that works for a good number of people and it's because so many people fail long-term at restrictive diets.

So, to be clear, I would suggest that you are unusual in terms of eliminating foods and being successful over the long term. That said, both methods CAN work, but it's a matter of what works for more people as a deciding factor as to what should be tried first.

So there.

Interesting that you assumed you. :flowerforyou:

MelodyandBarbells

I see the debate here mostly being about moderation vs. elimination, both of which I think are completely valid strategies.

I also think both are fine strategies, but again I don't think the debate has much if anything to do with the OP.

What gets me is the constant assumption that if you don't cut out "processed" foods or "added sugar" or whatever you are eating all sorts of highly sweetened stuff from the middle of the supermarket (not that there's anything wrong if that if it's what you choose to do and you also eat sufficient other foods to get a balanced nutrient-sufficient diet) and can't taste regular foods since you are so warped by all this hidden sugar that you are eating and probably addicted to. Seems like bunk to me. I mean, sure that might be true for some, but it's hardly the experience of everyone, even everyone who gained a bunch of weight.

And what bugs me is the constant assumption that if you choose to eliminate you're doing it wrong. :flowerforyou: Not saying YOU'VE said that, but rather that I see it said often. either the person is wrong, or weak ("lacks self control") or has a problem....

Advising people to try teaching themselves moderation before going to elimination, or suggesting that they eliminate temporarily with the hope of reintroducing them later and, again, learning to eat them in moderation, are not attacks on you personally. It's an approach that works for a good number of people and it's because so many people fail long-term at restrictive diets.

So, to be clear, I would suggest that you are unusual in terms of eliminating foods and being successful over the long term. That said, both methods CAN work, but it's a matter of what works for more people as a deciding factor as to what should be tried first.

So there.

Generally I agree with you, but when you have situations where the person has specifically said that moderation didn't work for them or they weren't interested in it (for whatever reason), then it seems silly to keep pushing moderation unless you really think they (1) didn't mean what they said or (2) were confused about the concept. But, that happens time and time again around here.

Most folks, whether they follow it or not, acknowledge that moderation is a valid path to weight loss success. However there are several moderation proponents (even on this thread) that seem incapable of understanding that it isn't absolutely necessary for everyone. That there are other valid paths that do not include moderation.

The validity component comes in when you consider success levels. Many of the posters have tried elimination or know tons of people who have, and it seemed to be a major contributor to compliance issues. It seems a good idea to share that crucial piece of information.

radmack

Advice worth about what you paid for it . . .

If moderation does not work for you, throw yourself into weight loss immoderately. Not advocating anything unhealthy, just that you throw yourself into this new endeavor with passion. Read up on posts by people who have successfully lost weight. Research diet and fitness. Make it something that is a very important part of your life. When you feel tempted, spend time looking at before and after success posts so that you can see that you CAN succeed as many others have.

I think what people are trying to say is that if you don't learn how to indulge your cravings in a healthier, controlled way . . . your cravings may end controlling you and sabotaging your efforts to lose weight.

lindsey1979

I see the debate here mostly being about moderation vs. elimination, both of which I think are completely valid strategies.

I also think both are fine strategies, but again I don't think the debate has much if anything to do with the OP.

What gets me is the constant assumption that if you don't cut out "processed" foods or "added sugar" or whatever you are eating all sorts of highly sweetened stuff from the middle of the supermarket (not that there's anything wrong if that if it's what you choose to do and you also eat sufficient other foods to get a balanced nutrient-sufficient diet) and can't taste regular foods since you are so warped by all this hidden sugar that you are eating and probably addicted to. Seems like bunk to me. I mean, sure that might be true for some, but it's hardly the experience of everyone, even everyone who gained a bunch of weight.

And what bugs me is the constant assumption that if you choose to eliminate you're doing it wrong. :flowerforyou: Not saying YOU'VE said that, but rather that I see it said often. either the person is wrong, or weak ("lacks self control") or has a problem....

Advising people to try teaching themselves moderation before going to elimination, or suggesting that they eliminate temporarily with the hope of reintroducing them later and, again, learning to eat them in moderation, are not attacks on you personally. It's an approach that works for a good number of people and it's because so many people fail long-term at restrictive diets.

So, to be clear, I would suggest that you are unusual in terms of eliminating foods and being successful over the long term. That said, both methods CAN work, but it's a matter of what works for more people as a deciding factor as to what should be tried first.

So there.

Generally I agree with you, but when you have situations where the person has specifically said that moderation didn't work for them or they weren't interested in it (for whatever reason), then it seems silly to keep pushing moderation unless you really think they (1) didn't mean what they said or (2) were confused about the concept. But, that happens time and time again around here.

Most folks, whether they follow it or not, acknowledge that moderation is a valid path to weight loss success. However there are several moderation proponents (even on this thread) that seem incapable of understanding that it isn't absolutely necessary for everyone. That there are other valid paths that do not include moderation.

The validity component comes in when you consider success levels. Many of the posters have tried elimination or know tons of people who have, and it seemed to be a major contributor to compliance issues. It seems a good idea to share that crucial piece of information.

The validity of what? Moderation? Most acknowledge that is valid. The issue is that it's not the ONLY valid path.

Geez. Talk about being intentionally obtuse.