Trigger Foods and How To Avoid Them Help

I would recommend eating those foods in moderation so they don't become "trigger" foods

Generally, when someone says "trigger food" they mean a food they find it nearly impossible to eat in moderation. It "triggers" them to overeat. If you can moderate your intake then it's not a trigger.

Drivel absolute drivel.


The term "trigger food" is just another excuse to prevent someone to actually change and take control of their lives.

Time to stop making excuses!

Excuses?? So forcing yourself to eat little bits of chips or candy = taking control and change. Not eating chips and candy =/= control and change. :huh:

Where does anyone say to force yourself to eat anything.

Op apparently wants to eat these foods. Why not eat them, in moderation, and enjoy them?
Why cut out foods you want to eat?

I eat a serving of chips/candy, whatever you consider a "trigger food". It's not just a little bit, it's enough for me to enjoy, and save the rest for the next time.


Stop arguing for the sake of arguing, it's getting old.

People are missing the learning curve part of this. It's a process. yes, one just simply needs to learn moderation. But, you don't just say, "Oh, ok, I'm going to moderate now." It's a process of constantly trying and screwing up massively, then trying and screwing up. A few years later, you're moderating pretty good, but still slip. A few years after that, you got it under control. It's a long learning process.

I disagree. Do or do not, there is no try.

If you can eat something in moderation without trying, then it was never a trigger food.

And if you can walk away from a food forever, then you never cared much for it anyway.

I would recommend eating those foods in moderation so they don't become "trigger" foods

Generally, when someone says "trigger food" they mean a food they find it nearly impossible to eat in moderation. It "triggers" them to overeat. If you can moderate your intake then it's not a trigger.

Drivel absolute drivel.


The term "trigger food" is just another excuse to prevent someone to actually change and take control of their lives.

Time to stop making excuses!

Excuses?? So forcing yourself to eat little bits of chips or candy = taking control and change. Not eating chips and candy =/= control and change. :huh:

Where does anyone say to force yourself to eat anything.

Op apparently wants to eat these foods. Why not eat them, in moderation, and enjoy them?
Why cut out foods you want to eat?

I eat a serving of chips/candy, whatever you consider a "trigger food". It's not just a little bit, it's enough for me to enjoy, and save the rest for the next time.


Stop arguing for the sake of arguing, it's getting old.

People are missing the learning curve part of this. It's a process. yes, one just simply needs to learn moderation. But, you don't just say, "Oh, ok, I'm going to moderate now." It's a process of constantly trying and screwing up massively, then trying and screwing up. A few years later, you're moderating pretty good, but still slip. A few years after that, you got it under control. It's a long learning process.

I disagree. Do or do not, there is no try.

If you can eat something in moderation without trying, then it was never a trigger food.

And if you can walk away from a food forever, then you never cared much for it anyway.

How do you figure that? People walk away from things they care about all the time.

I would recommend eating those foods in moderation so they don't become "trigger" foods

Generally, when someone says "trigger food" they mean a food they find it nearly impossible to eat in moderation. It "triggers" them to overeat. If you can moderate your intake then it's not a trigger.

So you learn will power and apply it to your life and grow as a person!? Just a thought, instead of avoiding the things you love...

Since when does learning to eat chips or cake in moderation = growing as a person? It's just food.

I think it's probably been mentioned a million times before with you, but learning to eat in moderation is about developing a better relationship with food, instead of a toxic one. If you can completely omit eating a food you love, then you didn't love it very much, did you? But if you can teach yourself to manage to only eat a reasonable portion, then you have taught yourself to manage temptation. Deprivation, while also a form of self-control, could also have potential self-destructive implications.

If you can teach yourself to not give in to temptation at all, then you've also taught yourself to control temptation. Feeling that you can't live without eating a little bit of every food doesn't seem any more in control or have a healthier relationship with food than simply choosing to not eat something at all.

Sometimes it's good to just break up.

If that was all I was capable of - then yes. That's what I would do. Thank goodness I was able to change some bad habits relating to food. I can eat anything I want and know how much I can fit into my weekly calories. This was a HUGE bit of personal growth for me. For many years, I used the excuse that I just couldn't control myself around some foods. Hooey. It was hard - but I did it. How you can see this as anything other than personal growth, is mind boggling.

That does seem to be personal growth for you. I concede the point for you. Well done. And I'm not being flip, I truly mean well done.

I appreciate this response and your willingness to learn from other points of view.

My take on the idea that learning to eat food in moderation is about personal growth, is that it's kind of similar to doing life drawing art classes... i.e. the ability to be around a naked person, and draw them too, without having silly adolescent fits of giggles or acute embarrassment. Like being able to just chat with the model as you draw them and not even bat an eyelid to the fact they've got no clothes on. Additionally, which is also in keeping with this analogy, it's people who are the least exposed to naked bodies who are the most uncomfortable and/or have the most OTT reactions when confronted with one. Learning not to see these kinds of things as something that makes you freak out or behave in an OTT way (uncontrollable overeating is an OTT reaction) is a form of personal growth, i.e. learning to take these things in your stride and not have OTT reactions to them.

Also (but not with the same analogy) being able to eat foods in moderation includes the ability to take it or leave it, as in you'll have it one day but not another. It's not "I have to eat 30g of chocolate every day or I'll snap and binge eat on it" - it's "I fancy some chocolate, well I have the calories for 30g so I'll have some" and on another day it's "I fancy some chocolate... oh look, no spare calories, oh well I'll make room for it tomorrow" and many days where you don't bother with the chocolate at all because it's not constantly on your mind.

ETA: re the last paragraph.. the "I have to eat 30g of chocolate each day to avoid binge eating it" is a step on the journey towards true self control and moderation with food, so I'm not knocking that or people who are at that stage.

I get all that. I just fail to see what is wrong with simply not eating chocolate?

And there were certainly some earlier posts that seemed to be knocking those excuse makers at that stage.

It depends on your reaction when you do come across chocolate. As in if you can take chocolate or leave it, and choose to leave it, then that's having control. If, when you come across chocolate, or eat a bit, or whatever, you lose control and binge eat on it, and the only way you can avoid binge eating on chocolate is to forbid yourself to have it in the house, be around it, etc, then that's not having self control. The OP asked about "trigger foods" i.e. foods she can't stop herself from binge eating on, and many of the responses are "don't have it in the house" and similar... well that's not overcoming the problem, it's systematically avoiding it.

From personal experience, I gave a list earlier in the thread of a whole bunch of foods that I couldn't eat in moderation in the past, as in I'd start eating them and not stop.... in the past, I would have considered donuts like krispy kreme to be one such food. These days, I almost never have krispy kreme donuts or similar kinds of donuts. Not because I've banned myself from eating them, but because when I changed my mentality towards all these foods (i.e. allowing myself to have them whenever, and not considering them as bad or forbidden, putting them in the same category as all other food) I found I didn't actually really like them that much. They're too sweet. If I'm going to have a donut (which is rare, because I'm not that keen on them) then I want one that's sugar coated with something like apple and cinnamon in the middle, not one that's covered in bright frosting and sprinkles, because they're just too sweet for my taste. Moderation does not mean you have to eat them every day or even with any kind of regularity.... it means you can take them or leave them and they're not constantly preying on your mind and you're not tempted to overeat on them and you can just fit them into your calories as and when you want to. If you never want to, then that's moderation. What is *not* moderation is banning them and then when you do find yourself in a situation where you can't avoid the food, or when you start eating it, you end up overeating on it in an uncontrollable fashion. That's not moderation. And simply systematically avoiding those foods is not moderation and is not learning how to exercise moderation around those foods. It's just avoiding the problem.

Generally, I think we should change the way we view food. If you call it a trigger food, you'll automatically associate it with uncontrolled eating and indulging. Also, no food is inherently evil or good... there's no morality tied to any food. However, it's normal for many people to categorize foods as good or bad...which causes them to feel a lot of guilt if they decide to eat a lot of pizza one day, etc. I used to one of these people who'd feel guilty over eating certain foods. No more tho!

It's fine to make substitutes for foods you find hard to stay away from... but it's also fine to include them in your daily intake and eat them in moderation. I actually have three pints of ice cream right now, some bags of potato chips, and other snacks in my kitchen. However, every time I eat them, I weigh a portion size first, put away the container, then savor each bite. Practicing mindful eating is great and will prevent you from munching out of distraction.

I would recommend eating those foods in moderation so they don't become "trigger" foods

Generally, when someone says "trigger food" they mean a food they find it nearly impossible to eat in moderation. It "triggers" them to overeat. If you can moderate your intake then it's not a trigger.

So you learn will power and apply it to your life and grow as a person!? Just a thought, instead of avoiding the things you love...

Since when does learning to eat chips or cake in moderation = growing as a person? It's just food.

I think it's probably been mentioned a million times before with you, but learning to eat in moderation is about developing a better relationship with food, instead of a toxic one. If you can completely omit eating a food you love, then you didn't love it very much, did you? But if you can teach yourself to manage to only eat a reasonable portion, then you have taught yourself to manage temptation. Deprivation, while also a form of self-control, could also have potential self-destructive implications.

If you can teach yourself to not give in to temptation at all, then you've also taught yourself to control temptation. Feeling that you can't live without eating a little bit of every food doesn't seem any more in control or have a healthier relationship with food than simply choosing to not eat something at all.

Sometimes it's good to just break up.

If that was all I was capable of - then yes. That's what I would do. Thank goodness I was able to change some bad habits relating to food. I can eat anything I want and know how much I can fit into my weekly calories. This was a HUGE bit of personal growth for me. For many years, I used the excuse that I just couldn't control myself around some foods. Hooey. It was hard - but I did it. How you can see this as anything other than personal growth, is mind boggling.

That does seem to be personal growth for you. I concede the point for you. Well done. And I'm not being flip, I truly mean well done.

I appreciate this response and your willingness to learn from other points of view.

My take on the idea that learning to eat food in moderation is about personal growth, is that it's kind of similar to doing life drawing art classes... i.e. the ability to be around a naked person, and draw them too, without having silly adolescent fits of giggles or acute embarrassment. Like being able to just chat with the model as you draw them and not even bat an eyelid to the fact they've got no clothes on. Additionally, which is also in keeping with this analogy, it's people who are the least exposed to naked bodies who are the most uncomfortable and/or have the most OTT reactions when confronted with one. Learning not to see these kinds of things as something that makes you freak out or behave in an OTT way (uncontrollable overeating is an OTT reaction) is a form of personal growth, i.e. learning to take these things in your stride and not have OTT reactions to them.

Also (but not with the same analogy) being able to eat foods in moderation includes the ability to take it or leave it, as in you'll have it one day but not another. It's not "I have to eat 30g of chocolate every day or I'll snap and binge eat on it" - it's "I fancy some chocolate, well I have the calories for 30g so I'll have some" and on another day it's "I fancy some chocolate... oh look, no spare calories, oh well I'll make room for it tomorrow" and many days where you don't bother with the chocolate at all because it's not constantly on your mind.

ETA: re the last paragraph.. the "I have to eat 30g of chocolate each day to avoid binge eating it" is a step on the journey towards true self control and moderation with food, so I'm not knocking that or people who are at that stage.

I get all that. I just fail to see what is wrong with simply not eating chocolate?

And there were certainly some earlier posts that seemed to be knocking those excuse makers at that stage.

It depends on your reaction when you do come across chocolate. As in if you can take chocolate or leave it, and choose to leave it, then that's having control. If, when you come across chocolate, or eat a bit, or whatever, you lose control and binge eat on it, and the only way you can avoid binge eating on chocolate is to forbid yourself to have it in the house, be around it, etc, then that's not having self control. The OP asked about "trigger foods" i.e. foods she can't stop herself from binge eating on, and many of the responses are "don't have it in the house" and similar... well that's not overcoming the problem, it's systematically avoiding it.

From personal experience, I gave a list earlier in the thread of a whole bunch of foods that I couldn't eat in moderation in the past, as in I'd start eating them and not stop.... in the past, I would have considered donuts like krispy kreme to be one such food. These days, I almost never have krispy kreme donuts or similar kinds of donuts. Not because I've banned myself from eating them, but because when I changed my mentality towards all these foods (i.e. allowing myself to have them whenever, and not considering them as bad or forbidden, putting them in the same category as all other food) I found I didn't actually really like them that much. They're too sweet. If I'm going to have a donut (which is rare, because I'm not that keen on them) then I want one that's sugar coated with something like apple and cinnamon in the middle, not one that's covered in bright frosting and sprinkles, because they're just too sweet for my taste. Moderation does not mean you have to eat them every day or even with any kind of regularity.... it means you can take them or leave them and they're not constantly preying on your mind and you're not tempted to overeat on them and you can just fit them into your calories as and when you want to. If you never want to, then that's moderation. What is *not* moderation is banning them and then when you do find yourself in a situation where you can't avoid the food, or when you start eating it, you end up overeating on it in an uncontrollable fashion. That's not moderation. And simply systematically avoiding those foods is not moderation and is not learning how to exercise moderation around those foods. It's just avoiding the problem.

THIS!!!

I still struggling with controlling my portions sometimes and getting off track and eating way more than I should have of yummy things. But since I stopped thinking "this is bad, I can't eat that" I have been a lot more successful. Removing the stigma removed the craving.

I'm far from perfect right now, I'm still working on it and sometimes I struggle, but it is a huge step up for me.

I would recommend eating those foods in moderation so they don't become "trigger" foods

Generally, when someone says "trigger food" they mean a food they find it nearly impossible to eat in moderation. It "triggers" them to overeat. If you can moderate your intake then it's not a trigger.

So you learn will power and apply it to your life and grow as a person!? Just a thought, instead of avoiding the things you love...

Since when does learning to eat chips or cake in moderation = growing as a person? It's just food.

I think it's probably been mentioned a million times before with you, but learning to eat in moderation is about developing a better relationship with food, instead of a toxic one. If you can completely omit eating a food you love, then you didn't love it very much, did you? But if you can teach yourself to manage to only eat a reasonable portion, then you have taught yourself to manage temptation. Deprivation, while also a form of self-control, could also have potential self-destructive implications.

If you can teach yourself to not give in to temptation at all, then you've also taught yourself to control temptation. Feeling that you can't live without eating a little bit of every food doesn't seem any more in control or have a healthier relationship with food than simply choosing to not eat something at all.

Sometimes it's good to just break up.

If that was all I was capable of - then yes. That's what I would do. Thank goodness I was able to change some bad habits relating to food. I can eat anything I want and know how much I can fit into my weekly calories. This was a HUGE bit of personal growth for me. For many years, I used the excuse that I just couldn't control myself around some foods. Hooey. It was hard - but I did it. How you can see this as anything other than personal growth, is mind boggling.

That does seem to be personal growth for you. I concede the point for you. Well done. And I'm not being flip, I truly mean well done.

I appreciate this response and your willingness to learn from other points of view.

My take on the idea that learning to eat food in moderation is about personal growth, is that it's kind of similar to doing life drawing art classes... i.e. the ability to be around a naked person, and draw them too, without having silly adolescent fits of giggles or acute embarrassment. Like being able to just chat with the model as you draw them and not even bat an eyelid to the fact they've got no clothes on. Additionally, which is also in keeping with this analogy, it's people who are the least exposed to naked bodies who are the most uncomfortable and/or have the most OTT reactions when confronted with one. Learning not to see these kinds of things as something that makes you freak out or behave in an OTT way (uncontrollable overeating is an OTT reaction) is a form of personal growth, i.e. learning to take these things in your stride and not have OTT reactions to them.

Also (but not with the same analogy) being able to eat foods in moderation includes the ability to take it or leave it, as in you'll have it one day but not another. It's not "I have to eat 30g of chocolate every day or I'll snap and binge eat on it" - it's "I fancy some chocolate, well I have the calories for 30g so I'll have some" and on another day it's "I fancy some chocolate... oh look, no spare calories, oh well I'll make room for it tomorrow" and many days where you don't bother with the chocolate at all because it's not constantly on your mind.

ETA: re the last paragraph.. the "I have to eat 30g of chocolate each day to avoid binge eating it" is a step on the journey towards true self control and moderation with food, so I'm not knocking that or people who are at that stage.

I get all that. I just fail to see what is wrong with simply not eating chocolate?

And there were certainly some earlier posts that seemed to be knocking those excuse makers at that stage.

It depends on your reaction when you do come across chocolate. As in if you can take chocolate or leave it, and choose to leave it, then that's having control. If, when you come across chocolate, or eat a bit, or whatever, you lose control and binge eat on it, and the only way you can avoid binge eating on chocolate is to forbid yourself to have it in the house, be around it, etc, then that's not having self control. The OP asked about "trigger foods" i.e. foods she can't stop herself from binge eating on, and many of the responses are "don't have it in the house" and similar... well that's not overcoming the problem, it's systematically avoiding it.

From personal experience, I gave a list earlier in the thread of a whole bunch of foods that I couldn't eat in moderation in the past, as in I'd start eating them and not stop.... in the past, I would have considered donuts like krispy kreme to be one such food. These days, I almost never have krispy kreme donuts or similar kinds of donuts. Not because I've banned myself from eating them, but because when I changed my mentality towards all these foods (i.e. allowing myself to have them whenever, and not considering them as bad or forbidden, putting them in the same category as all other food) I found I didn't actually really like them that much. They're too sweet. If I'm going to have a donut (which is rare, because I'm not that keen on them) then I want one that's sugar coated with something like apple and cinnamon in the middle, not one that's covered in bright frosting and sprinkles, because they're just too sweet for my taste. Moderation does not mean you have to eat them every day or even with any kind of regularity.... it means you can take them or leave them and they're not constantly preying on your mind and you're not tempted to overeat on them and you can just fit them into your calories as and when you want to. If you never want to, then that's moderation. What is *not* moderation is banning them and then when you do find yourself in a situation where you can't avoid the food, or when you start eating it, you end up overeating on it in an uncontrollable fashion. That's not moderation. And simply systematically avoiding those foods is not moderation and is not learning how to exercise moderation around those foods. It's just avoiding the problem.

But banning certain foods is often the first step to moderation when it comes to trigger foods. And honestly never getting over a trigger food really isn't that bad. Everyone I know knows not to bring Cheetos in my house without asking. I can't eat just one handful. Correction, I don't eat just one handful. Obvoiusly, I could control my hand, but I won't and don't control myself around Cheetos.

This hasn't ruined my life or dimished it in any way. When I choose to eat Cheetos, unless someone else is really quick, I eat all the Cheetos. I prefer it this way. All or nothing. Usually nothing.

it's all about moderation. If you read the calorie content, and figure out the serving size - if you can afford the calories have the serving size. if not - then cut the size in half and just have enough to satisfy the craving.

I do this with chocolate. I buy lindt and godiva truffles or balls - and serving size is 3 or 4 depending on the type. so one ball is 50 or 60 cal. - let it melt on your tongue and enjoy it - and know that there's another day to appreciate it again. You don't have to stuff yourself and binge to appreciate good food and treats.

Also - learn will power - if you eat the right foods most of the time, and aren't hungry - you won't binge on the bad stuff. All of us should be able to have chips in the house and not eat the whole bag. know that 10 or 15 chips is a serving - and know the limits. Eat a full meal before you reach for the treats.

And know when to say you're done and mean it before you reach your hand into the bag for the first time.

Finally,, take ownership even when you fail - reflect binges as well as successes in your food log. Own them, and yes, feel guilty if you've cheated when you didn't intend to - this type of lifestyle is about having control, not letting food control us.

Just eat breakfast.

Agreed. I learned in a very important science based factual true to life real quoted article that breakfast fixes everything and if you don't eat it you are doing life wrong because science.

I do this with chocolate. I buy lindt and godiva truffles or balls - and serving size is 3 or 4 depending on the type. so one ball is 50 or 60 cal. - let it melt on your tongue and enjoy it - and know that there's another day to appreciate it again. You don't have to stuff yourself and binge to appreciate good food and treats.

So uh, I'm going to go buy some lindt truffles now. Yummmmm