mitigating risk

Options
__drmerc__
__drmerc__ Posts: 722 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
MFP as a whole has a problem with risk... I think the problem is most here don't know how to mitigate risk so you label it as bad and just avoid it. Eating that candy is risky, you could get fat. Maybe that sandwich will give you heart disease so you better call it bad.

Everything you do in life has a risk. You could get run over from crossing the street or get sick eating a subway sandwich.
So how do you mitigate this any risk? Easy, moderation. Take a small bite of the sandwich see how you feel. Only cross the street when necessary. Eat 1 serving of candy not 12.

Replies

  • horndave
    horndave Posts: 565
    Options
    your logic offends me.
  • astrose00
    astrose00 Posts: 754 Member
    Options
    Anything that tastes good but doesn't fill me up is dangerous for me! I am a candy fiend so I have to stay away from it. One serving? hahahahaha. Zero servings? Okay, I can do that. But in general, I agree with your post. I just know my weakness (candy). I can mitigate anything else (alcohol, fast food, cake, etc.).
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    Can we get your definition of "moderation" and what foods should be limited to "moderate" amounts?
  • tchell99
    tchell99 Posts: 434 Member
    Options
    I agree with you - it's not rational. But sometimes cravings aren't. As astrose says, for some things (candy, baked goods, peanut butter filled pretzels) one serving leads to way-more-than-one 9 out of 10 times. Thankfully, there are few slippery slope foods on my list in the grand scheme of things.
  • jeffd247
    jeffd247 Posts: 319 Member
    Options
    You can't "mitigate" risk if you don't calculate it.

    You don't "mitigate" the risk of eating a sandwich by taking a small bite. I know it's a silly analogy that you used, but it's too silly.

    Silly.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    __drmerc__ wrote: »
    Kalikel wrote: »
    Can we get your definition of "moderation" and what foods should be limited to "moderate" amounts?

    Did you read my post? I don't think I advocated moderation specific foods.

    You need to assess the risk/reward of the specific situation and act accordingly

    So what is this Guide To Healthy Eating that you're proposing? The same amount of all types of foods?

    How do we assess the risk?

    Now I don't know what you mean by "reward"? Is that the yumminess factor? The health factor?

    I'm not trying to pick on you (honestly), but to understand what you're saying.

    Some people cheer moderation and eat a diet that is half junk. Others cheer moderation and eat a diet that is 95% healthy. There are a lot of different takes on "moderation." So every time someone suggests it, I have to figure out from context what they mean and I can't here. Not making fun, just clarifying. :)
  • DiabolicalColossus
    DiabolicalColossus Posts: 219 Member
    Options
    astrose00 wrote: »
    Anything that tastes good but doesn't fill me up is dangerous for me! I am a candy fiend so I have to stay away from it. One serving? hahahahaha. Zero servings? Okay, I can do that. But in general, I agree with your post. I just know my weakness (candy). I can mitigate anything else (alcohol, fast food, cake, etc.).

    If one is a "fiend" for candy, there are a few options:

    1) Eat a small piece, then move on with your life.

    2) Have none at all.

    3) Figure out why you go insane with candy, usually with the assistance of a professional.

    4) Do nothing.


    I'd recommend #3, even if you never want to have candy again. It's better to have an understanding of triggers so you can plan long term success.

Categories