Moderation DOES NOT WORK for me

FitCattitude

3 weeks in, I just add any chocolate into daily calories, making sure I work out plenty in the week and munch up those calories too. Also, I can recommend yoga ... over the first few weeks, you gradually find you want different foods, have loads more energy, are a lot more flexible. I did yoga back when I was 17, just using a book (Lynn Marshall), no classes etc, and lost all the weight, within weeks was eating fruit and veg mainly, full of energy ... amazing. Now I've started ddp yoga, which incorporates yoga/resistance/pilates etc ... just a couple of weeks in, but certainly feel better.

I'm also finding that discovering healthy foods that I really like eg wholemeal bagels, wholemeal pitta bread (yum when toasted and a bit of peanut butter on) is key too. Plus it's great to see the amount of protein you're eating, instead of lots of sugar/fat showing up in tracking. I drink a protein shake too, after working out. Plus it feels great to work out, drink water, eat healthier etc ... a new buzz and esteem, instead of feeling good eating fast food. I'm also glad that I'm saving money by not ordering out too, lol.

I think it's about learning how you can eat better, enjoy that, enjoy working out, and adapt to feeling good that way eg the feel good from working out, tracking, better nutrition, plus knowing you have the freedom to incorporate chocolate etc into your calories and can exercise more and munch up those calories too. A combination of new ways of feeling good and knowing you have freedom within your weight loss journey.

Whatever you do, it has to be realistic, sustainable, and enable you to lose weight while learning new genuinely enjoyable eating habits. If you force yourself too much, that could just backfire, but good discipline mixed in with a healthy mental attitude, and some treats, is bound to get you there.

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.

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.

Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't know why--other than the title--everyone is reading the OP to be giving up stuff. It's just a classic I can't plus excuses. She says she can't eliminate either because temptation and then acknowledges that temptation extends to the existence of pizza delivery in her town. It's not about moderation or trigger foods or some "addiction" but simply not being ready.

parkscs

Just my $0.02, but while you do need to learn to eat "normally in moderation" in the long-term, I've never thought it's good advice to encourage someone with horrible eating habits to continue eating pizza, fast food and the like on a regular basis but to just use "moderation." While in the abstract that sort of plan certainly can work, in reality people fall victim to temptation all the time and for someone who has historically struggled with how they eat and how much they eat, you're not doing them any favors by telling them to order that pizza and just employ a bit of moderation; that can come later, once they've become adjusted to eating fewer calories/smaller portions, tracking their intake, weighing their food and the like.

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.)

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.

I love cottage cheese AND yogurt. Really can't think of anything dairy I'm not fond of (well, never tried kumis, so maybe that). But hate rice cakes!

lemurcat12

Just my $0.02, but while you do need to learn to eat "normally in moderation" in the long-term, I've never thought it's good advice to encourage someone with horrible eating habits to continue eating pizza, fast food and the like on a regular basis but to just use "moderation." While in the abstract that sort of plan certainly can work, in reality people fall victim to temptation all the time and for someone who has historically struggled with how they eat and how much they eat, you're not doing them any favors by telling them to order that pizza and just employ a bit of moderation; that can come later, once they've become adjusted to eating fewer calories/smaller portions, tracking their intake, weighing their food and the like.

To the extent moderation means don't change your eating habits except eat less, I don't think it's a good strategy for most people (although I've known some for whom it is). For me, that would focus on the deprivation aspect (as does cutting out foods) whereas focusing on all the great nutrient dense foods that are helpful to eat does not, and can be based on taste and enjoyment as well as health, with it being barely noticeable that I am eating far less of whatever.

But for me also saying I'm never eating whatever again would ruin that.

There are many things I've not had since starting this, but I haven't cut them. My guess is I'd miss them if I had, when in fact I haven't this way. Other foods, like ice cream and thin crust pizza, I have had, and yet not had any problem with moderation.

Point is people can figure out what their food issues are and what led to their weight gain and should develop strategies related to that. OP doesn't seem to have gotten there yet, so instead this is people debating about what's worked for them.

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.

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.

Calm down, lady. You mentioned the word "valid" in the post I responded to. Now re-read your sentence containing that word, my response, and your silly mini-flip out.

kimbelle_vie

I am a college student as well living at home with parents. Do u have a job? If the type of food ur parents buy are trigger foods and u "can't" eat less then buy your own food. Set u a weekly budget and buy you some healthy thing u like

MelodyandBarbells

Just my $0.02, but while you do need to learn to eat "normally in moderation" in the long-term, I've never thought it's good advice to encourage someone with horrible eating habits to continue eating pizza, fast food and the like on a regular basis but to just use "moderation." While in the abstract that sort of plan certainly can work, in reality people fall victim to temptation all the time and for someone who has historically struggled with how they eat and how much they eat, you're not doing them any favors by telling them to order that pizza and just employ a bit of moderation; that can come later, once they've become adjusted to eating fewer calories/smaller portions, tracking their intake, weighing their food and the like.

To me, one possible problem here is a hugely sharp deficit. If a less aggressive weight loss rate is selected, a lot of people could still eat lots of food , including controlled quantities of whatever got them fat to begin with. The control could be any of the methods detailed in this and other threads so far. When the deficit is too sharp that's when you may feel like you have to say goodbye to anything that's not baked chicken breasts and veg, and there are just not many people that can sustain this over any appreciable period of time.

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.

I love cottage cheese AND yogurt. Really can't think of anything dairy I'm not fond of (well, never tried kumis, so maybe that). But hate rice cakes!

The poor rice cakes are getting a bad rep. Some are really good. They're crunchy, too. Great little snack. I like the generic (not Quaker) Apple ones from the Giant Eagle store so much that I have them mailed to me from out of state.

I agree that the OP is probably not ready to lose her weight. When you're really ready, nothing stops you.

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.

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.

Calm down, lady. You mentioned the word "valid" in the post I responded to. Now re-read your sentence containing that word, my response, and your silly mini-flip out.

flip out?

derik999

I just don't keep the junk food in the house, makes it a lot easier. I may have a mini candy bar or a cookie from time to time when I'm out and about and it's offered but I can stick with just one. Sometimes I'll just break the cookie in half and toss what I don't eat. Most of the time I just don't have the craving to even bother eating that kind of stuff. Quest bars usually do the trick for anything resembling a sweet tooth.

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.

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.

Calm down, lady. You mentioned the word "valid" in the post I responded to. Now re-read your sentence containing that word, my response, and your silly mini-flip out.

flip out?

Mini flip out. :bigsmile: Aww, dang it. It may not be as popular a term as I thought, or maybe no one's bothered to define it:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flipped out

GatorDeb1

After 18 years of therapy, self-help groups, group therapy, books, I stopped binge-geating on my own. Go figure.

You really can and it really is all up you. There's no gimmicks, no secrets, you either do something or you don't.

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.

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.

Calm down, lady. You mentioned the word "valid" in the post I responded to. Now re-read your sentence containing that word, my response, and your silly mini-flip out.

flip out?

Mini flip out. :bigsmile: Aww, dang it. It may not be as popular a term as I thought, or maybe no one's bothered to define it:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flipped out

I know what it means. I didn't think anyone flipped out.

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.

Interesting that you assumed you. :flowerforyou:

I made no such assumption. You really should get counseling.

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:

I made no such assumption. You really should get counseling.

LOL. You are nothing if not entertaining.

Meerataila

It's silly but last night I stood there staring at a bar of dark vegan chocolate contemplating buying it and having a little each night this week, and I had the urge because of threads like these.

But no matter how well-reasoned the argument some of you have for moderation, my sweet tooth is a like that proverbial camel. If I let it get its nose in the tent, it will soon be wearing the tent. And then I'll be wearing clothes that look like a tent again!

Some of you don't know how lucky you are to just have a nibble of chocolate or whatever and go about your day with minimal mental nagging to have some more. Resisting the inner brat is possible, sure, but it's most unpleasant and I find it mentally draining, while simply not having any at all is much easier. And leaves me more calories for healthy foods that make me feel good and full of energy.

Although eventually I am going to try vegan dark chocolate. For all I know, that will give me loads of energy. But I want someone to split the bar with. I know it will be more convenient for me if it's simply not in the house after I've had my portion for the day.

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.

Interesting that you assumed you. :flowerforyou:

I made no such assumption. You really should get counseling.

LOL. You are nothing if not entertaining.

I am that, but I do hope you get the help you need. It's obvious to everyone but you.

maillemaker

Ah, food! Quite a diagnosis based on very little. I do think food addiction is a thing--I think it's at least a reasonable term or related psychological issue to binge eating disorders or the kinds of "food above all" compulsions that lead to people becoming morbidly obese in at least some cases. To toss that term around for people who just have trouble not overeating foods they really like, though, seems irresponsible.

The OP's topic is, "Moderation DOES NOT WORK for me."

OP also says, "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."

What I read from this, colored by my own experiences, is that the OP is unable to exercise self-control with regards to eating "unhealthy foods".

The inability to control/refrain from a destructive behavior is to me a sign of addiction. You might also choose to call it a compulsion.

maillemaker

Also, you gotta have willpower to say no.

That is, it seems, the problem.

Once you stop eating that crap you won't want it anymore.

Unfortunately this has never been true for me over years and countless diet attempts.