Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »How are they different?
Telling people to eat glass, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat pavement, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat fur, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat rancid meat, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat trees, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
and wait for it!
Telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
If you think any one of those sentences is the same as "Telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice," I swear to god I will mail your response to the English department at your college and strong arm them in forcing you to retake English Comp I.
I see where you are coming from! I see from the 'butt hurt button' at least 2 people don't.
Telling people to eat 'what they want' in moderation can be the wrong advice.
Eating in moderation is a good thing for some people, but maybe educating people in what to eat in moderation would be more beneficial.
-2 -
Actually you are all correct - my statement was not well thought out and I am going to delete it until I work out what I do mean. I couldn't sleep last night and spent half the night reading this enormous thread and I am sleep deprived and hungry so I'm off to have lunch - tuna and salad. I consider that healthy food - donuts, dr pepper, those horrible foods that sit in the local deli etc are junk to me.
Now TheVirgoddess - don't get irritated, life is too short for that.
There are a heap of things I consider junk food but honestly how does that effect you in any way. I have eaten this way for most of my life and aren't about to change now. My body lets me know if it is junk as I will lack energy, have a headache, foggy mind, bloated and in general wish to goodness I had never eaten it in the first place because it is JUNK!! 
Yeah, sure. donuts are "junk," but they are also delicious, help me meet my macro goals, and make me pscyhologically pleased. I go through a box of 6 donuts in probably 1-2 months, and then can go months without buying donuts again. That's the nice thing about moderation for me, it's helped me stop binging and just eat these foods in non-ridiculous amounts and only when I actually feel like eating them. I practice moderation wtih all foods (healthy or not healthy).
Donuts help you meet your macro goals. heh.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Actually you are all correct - my statement was not well thought out and I am going to delete it until I work out what I do mean. I couldn't sleep last night and spent half the night reading this enormous thread and I am sleep deprived and hungry so I'm off to have lunch - tuna and salad. I consider that healthy food - donuts, dr pepper, those horrible foods that sit in the local deli etc are junk to me.
Now TheVirgoddess - don't get irritated, life is too short for that. There are a heap of things I consider junk food but honestly how does that effect you in any way. I have eaten this way for most of my life and aren't about to change now. My body lets me know if it is junk as I will lack energy, have a headache, foggy mind, bloated and in general wish to goodness I had never eaten it in the first place because it is JUNK!!
Yeah, sure. donuts are "junk," but they are also delicious, help me meet my macro goals, and make me pscyhologically pleased. I go through a box of 6 donuts in probably 1-2 months, and then can go months without buying donuts again. That's the nice thing about moderation for me, it's helped me stop binging and just eat these foods in non-ridiculous amounts and only when I actually feel like eating them. I practice moderation wtih all foods (healthy or not healthy).
Donuts help you meet your macro goals. heh.
Actually donuts will help you meet your macros goal. They're mainly carbs so they will count against your carb macros.
That's why just focusing on calories and macro's for a healthy diet is so flawed!
-1 -
They are definitely carbs! And some fat. lol.tennisdude2004 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Actually you are all correct - my statement was not well thought out and I am going to delete it until I work out what I do mean. I couldn't sleep last night and spent half the night reading this enormous thread and I am sleep deprived and hungry so I'm off to have lunch - tuna and salad. I consider that healthy food - donuts, dr pepper, those horrible foods that sit in the local deli etc are junk to me.
Now TheVirgoddess - don't get irritated, life is too short for that. There are a heap of things I consider junk food but honestly how does that effect you in any way. I have eaten this way for most of my life and aren't about to change now. My body lets me know if it is junk as I will lack energy, have a headache, foggy mind, bloated and in general wish to goodness I had never eaten it in the first place because it is JUNK!!
Yeah, sure. donuts are "junk," but they are also delicious, help me meet my macro goals, and make me pscyhologically pleased. I go through a box of 6 donuts in probably 1-2 months, and then can go months without buying donuts again. That's the nice thing about moderation for me, it's helped me stop binging and just eat these foods in non-ridiculous amounts and only when I actually feel like eating them. I practice moderation wtih all foods (healthy or not healthy).
Donuts help you meet your macro goals. heh.
Actually donuts will help you meet your macros goal. They're mainly carbs so they will count against your carb macros.
That's why just focusing on calories and macro's for a healthy diet is so flawed!
0 -
I truly want to read all 31 pages of this thread but the amount of responders - in agreement with the OP or not - interpreting "cutting back" as "cutting out" is daunting0
-
Here's the cliff notes:
1. Carbs and fat do all kinds of good things, so if you want to lose weight, cutting sugar, which only does one or two things, is the best place to start cutting calories!
2. No it isn't.
3. Yes it is no it isn't (up to page six).
4. Page seven -- I'm calling bs on eating what you want in moderation. Here's a moderate menu of junk food that is super high in calories.
7. That's not moderation because it doesn't meet your numbers.
10. Well here's a menu of junk food that meets my calories and my macros. It's so little food that I would be hungry all the time.
11. That's still not moderation.
12. Yes it is.
13. No it isn't.
14. People who struggle with controlling their food intake just lack willpower.
15. Where do we get willpower from
16. From the dictionary! (dictionary definition of will power provided)
17. Willpower willpower willpower for a couple of pages, including studies of willpower that show it's a depletable source, not a constant.
18. Then about seven pages dedicated to whether or not "telling people to eat what they want, even in moderation, is terrible advice" means "telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice."
19. And here we are.
I probably missed some subthreads -- feel free to add any salient points I missed!
-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Here's the cliff notes:
1. Carbs and fat do all kinds of good things, so if you want to lose weight, cutting sugar, which only does one or two things, is the best place to start cutting calories!
2. No it isn't.
3. Yes it is not it isn't up to page six.
4. Page seven -- I'm calling bs on eating what you want in moderation. Here's a moderate menu of junk food that is super high in calories.
7. That's not moderation because it doesn't meet your numbers.
10. Well here's a menu of junk food that meets my calories and my macros. It's so little food that I would be hungry all the time.
11. That's still not moderation.
12. Yes it is.
13. No it isn't.
14. Fat people just lack willpower.
15. Where do we get willpower from
16. From the dictionary! (dictionary definition of will power provided)
17. Willpower willpower willpower for a couple of pages, including studies of willpower that show it's a depletable source, not a constant.
18. Then about seven pages dedicated to whether or not "telling people to eat what they want, even in moderation, is terrible advice" means "telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice."
19. And here we are.
I probably missed some subthreads -- feel free to add any salient points I missed!
Deirdre, I enjoyed reading this post entirely too much! We shall make thee the official MFP thread Summarizer :bigsmile:
0 -
Ok. People feel obligated to tell people over the internet, that they're wrong, ad nauseam.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Here's the cliff notes:
1. Carbs and fat do all kinds of good things, so if you want to lose weight, cutting sugar, which only does one or two things, is the best place to start cutting calories!
2. No it isn't.
3. Yes it is not it isn't up to page six.
4. Page seven -- I'm calling bs on eating what you want in moderation. Here's a moderate menu of junk food that is super high in calories.
7. That's not moderation because it doesn't meet your numbers.
10. Well here's a menu of junk food that meets my calories and my macros. It's so little food that I would be hungry all the time.
11. That's still not moderation.
12. Yes it is.
13. No it isn't.
14. Fat people just lack willpower.
15. Where do we get willpower from
16. From the dictionary! (dictionary definition of will power provided)
17. Willpower willpower willpower for a couple of pages, including studies of willpower that show it's a depletable source, not a constant.
18. Then about seven pages dedicated to whether or not "telling people to eat what they want, even in moderation, is terrible advice" means "telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice."
19. And here we are.
I probably missed some subthreads -- feel free to add any salient points I missed!
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Ok. People feel obligated to tell people over the internet, that they're wrong, ad nauseam.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Here's the cliff notes:
1. Carbs and fat do all kinds of good things, so if you want to lose weight, cutting sugar, which only does one or two things, is the best place to start cutting calories!
2. No it isn't.
3. Yes it is not it isn't up to page six.
4. Page seven -- I'm calling bs on eating what you want in moderation. Here's a moderate menu of junk food that is super high in calories.
7. That's not moderation because it doesn't meet your numbers.
10. Well here's a menu of junk food that meets my calories and my macros. It's so little food that I would be hungry all the time.
11. That's still not moderation.
12. Yes it is.
13. No it isn't.
14. Fat people just lack willpower.
15. Where do we get willpower from
16. From the dictionary! (dictionary definition of will power provided)
17. Willpower willpower willpower for a couple of pages, including studies of willpower that show it's a depletable source, not a constant.
18. Then about seven pages dedicated to whether or not "telling people to eat what they want, even in moderation, is terrible advice" means "telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice."
19. And here we are.
I probably missed some subthreads -- feel free to add any salient points I missed!
+1 for both0 -
I truly want to read all 31 pages of this thread but the amount of responders - in agreement with the OP or not - interpreting "cutting back" as "cutting out" is daunting
I thought the same but I found that element of the conversation interesting.
The point was made that for some people cutting out, be it as a short term or long term one, actually proves to be easier than trying to cut back.
This is undoubtedly true but more relevant to a minority I feel. Trying to have small amounts of craving associated foods causes more feelings of psychological distress (feelings of lack of control, helplessness, irritability, preoccupation and so on) than simply cutting them out altogether.0 -
Amazing that that might actually be a factor....ziplined and outta here.I truly want to read all 31 pages of this thread but the amount of responders - in agreement with the OP or not - interpreting "cutting back" as "cutting out" is daunting
I thought the same but I found that element of the conversation interesting.
The point was made that for some people cutting out, be it as a short term or long term one, actually proves to be easier than trying to cut back.
This is undoubtedly true but more relevant to a minority I feel. Trying to have small amounts of craving associated foods causes more feelings of psychological distress (feelings of lack of control, helplessness, irritability, preoccupation and so on) than simply cutting them out altogether.
0 -
Of course. It isn't the donuts at all. It's the ingredients in the donuts, which is an entirely different thing. The ingredients of the donut are completely unrelated to the donut.0 -
Of course. It isn't the donuts at all. It's the ingredients in the donuts, which is an entirely different thing. The ingredients of the donut are completely unrelated to the donut.
Maybe they're actually a muffin in disguise, you never know.
Of course. It isn't the donuts at all. It's the ingredients in the donuts, which is an entirely different thing. The ingredients of the donut are completely unrelated to the donut.
0 -
I truly want to read all 31 pages of this thread but the amount of responders - in agreement with the OP or not - interpreting "cutting back" as "cutting out" is daunting
I thought the same but I found that element of the conversation interesting.
The point was made that for some people cutting out, be it as a short term or long term one, actually proves to be easier than trying to cut back.
This is undoubtedly true but more relevant to a minority I feel. Trying to have small amounts of craving associated foods causes more feelings of psychological distress (feelings of lack of control, helplessness, irritability, preoccupation and so on) than simply cutting them out altogether.
But why tiny amounts? To me, cutting back might mean 2 sodas a day instead of 3, or 2 full sugar sodas and one diet or some other low/reduced calorie drink. People often look to do everything at once, whereas any reduction in calorie intake will at the very least slow down your rate of weight gain
Off to continue reading - I'm at page five
0 -
This definitely could be true for some. I don't think it is for me, in that I've never been a binge eater or anything like that. My one weight loss attempt was the one that worked. I cut back on sugars as part of it. It turned out to be so easy, and, as part of my overall approach (sort of mediterranean meets south beach) was almost too easy. (with no calorie counting).I truly want to read all 31 pages of this thread but the amount of responders - in agreement with the OP or not - interpreting "cutting back" as "cutting out" is daunting
I thought the same but I found that element of the conversation interesting.
The point was made that for some people cutting out, be it as a short term or long term one, actually proves to be easier than trying to cut back.
This is undoubtedly true but more relevant to a minority I feel. Trying to have small amounts of craving associated foods causes more feelings of psychological distress (feelings of lack of control, helplessness, irritability, preoccupation and so on) than simply cutting them out altogether.
For me the argument revolves around the assertion that one "must" eat junk food and sweets or they are somehow denying themselves something fundamental and necessary. And the assertion that there's ONE RIGHT WAY to lose weight: calorie counting (with or without macro counting) while eating whatever food types you want.
For me, the argument isn't particularly personal (though I do limit sweets), I argue the same way on low carb threads where the IIFYM mafia dogmatically posts, and I'm not low carb.
But yes, this could definitely be the case for many, and yes, it's easier even for me, to have none (of tortilla chips) than a little.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
This definitely could be true for some. I don't think it is for me, in that I've never been a binge eater or anything like that. My one weight loss attempt was the one that worked. I cut back on sugars as part of it. It turned out to be so easy, and, as part of my overall approach (sort of mediterranean meets south beach) was almost too easy. (with no calorie counting).I truly want to read all 31 pages of this thread but the amount of responders - in agreement with the OP or not - interpreting "cutting back" as "cutting out" is daunting
I thought the same but I found that element of the conversation interesting.
The point was made that for some people cutting out, be it as a short term or long term one, actually proves to be easier than trying to cut back.
This is undoubtedly true but more relevant to a minority I feel. Trying to have small amounts of craving associated foods causes more feelings of psychological distress (feelings of lack of control, helplessness, irritability, preoccupation and so on) than simply cutting them out altogether.
For me the argument revolves around the assertion that one "must" eat junk food and sweets or they are somehow denying themselves something fundamental and necessary. And the assertion that there's ONE RIGHT WAY to lose weight: calorie counting (with or without macro counting) while eating whatever food types you want.
For me, the argument isn't particularly personal (though I do limit sweets), I argue the same way on low carb threads where the IIFYM mafia dogmatically posts, and I'm not low carb.
But yes, this could definitely be the case for many, and yes, it's easier even for me, to have none (of tortilla chips) than a little.
+1,000
I eliminated sweets and high carb foods because they triggered binges. I don't feel at all deprived, and people continually, ad nauseum, insisting that that is depriving yourself, doesn't make it so for me and others like me. I'm perfectly happy. Telling me I'm torturing myself is pointless, because it isn't true. Convictions are great, but they don't equal truth that applies to everyone in the entire world in and of themselves. People are different. And there isn't anything wrong with that.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. And if someone doesn't like the way I skin mine, they can go tend to the skinning of their own cat. I'm betting he's feeling lonely and irked at the job left unfinished. I seriously don't care how anyone else eats. Each person should do what is best for them and their health. People who eat in moderation, whatever that means to them, can go do their thing, and I'll do mine, happily ignoring their insistence that what I'm doing is wrong. In 6 months, I'll be at goal (having lost over 100lbs) and maintaining for the rest of my life. We'll see how "wrong" I was then, I guess.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Here's the cliff notes:
1. Carbs and fat do all kinds of good things, so if you want to lose weight, cutting sugar, which only does one or two things, is the best place to start cutting calories!
2. No it isn't.
3. Yes it is no it isn't (up to page six).
4. Page seven -- I'm calling bs on eating what you want in moderation. Here's a moderate menu of junk food that is super high in calories.
7. That's not moderation because it doesn't meet your numbers.
10. Well here's a menu of junk food that meets my calories and my macros. It's so little food that I would be hungry all the time.
11. That's still not moderation.
12. Yes it is.
13. No it isn't.
14. People who struggle with controlling their food intake just lack willpower.
15. Where do we get willpower from
16. From the dictionary! (dictionary definition of will power provided)
17. Willpower willpower willpower for a couple of pages, including studies of willpower that show it's a depletable source, not a constant.
18. Then about seven pages dedicated to whether or not "telling people to eat what they want, even in moderation, is terrible advice" means "telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice."
19. And here we are.
I probably missed some subthreads -- feel free to add any salient points I missed!
Loved this.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
This definitely could be true for some. I don't think it is for me, in that I've never been a binge eater or anything like that. My one weight loss attempt was the one that worked. I cut back on sugars as part of it. It turned out to be so easy, and, as part of my overall approach (sort of mediterranean meets south beach) was almost too easy. (with no calorie counting).I truly want to read all 31 pages of this thread but the amount of responders - in agreement with the OP or not - interpreting "cutting back" as "cutting out" is daunting
I thought the same but I found that element of the conversation interesting.
The point was made that for some people cutting out, be it as a short term or long term one, actually proves to be easier than trying to cut back.
This is undoubtedly true but more relevant to a minority I feel. Trying to have small amounts of craving associated foods causes more feelings of psychological distress (feelings of lack of control, helplessness, irritability, preoccupation and so on) than simply cutting them out altogether.
For me the argument revolves around the assertion that one "must" eat junk food and sweets or they are somehow denying themselves something fundamental and necessary. And the assertion that there's ONE RIGHT WAY to lose weight: calorie counting (with or without macro counting) while eating whatever food types you want.
For me, the argument isn't particularly personal (though I do limit sweets), I argue the same way on low carb threads where the IIFYM mafia dogmatically posts, and I'm not low carb.
But yes, this could definitely be the case for many, and yes, it's easier even for me, to have none (of tortilla chips) than a little.
Yeah, it's the one size fits all stuff that bothers me too, and I agree re the low carb argument although I also am not low carb.
It just bothers me when it's the other direction too--people assuming that those trying to lose must eat immoderate amounts of sugar or tons of fast food or 24/7 junk food or that not cutting it out (not the OP's point) means you eat a non nutritious diet, etc.
I think there are good points to be made about not moralizing about good and bad foods, but that doesn't mean that cutting out or limiting foods can't be a good strategy. For me focusing on a positive tends to work better than focusing on the limits, but the results are the same, probably.
There are all kinds of strategies that work. I just noticed this with another discussion--I don't think of myself as limiting foods at all, but I don't snack (it doesn't really appeal to me as something to keep in my lifestyle), and I have a pretty traditional view of what a regular meal should involve so that alone prevents me from really overeating much of the time (certainly when I cook, which I think I should most of the time) or eating foods that wouldn't be part of a normal meal. If I did snack it might work to have rules about what a snack would involve. People are just different.
I know cutting things out won't cause me to binge any more than eating them them will. I just see no point in it, for me.
I also reserve the right to object to the next "sugar is the demon tool of the man" thread.
0 -
Must admit that one side bowled me as well. Once you eliminate gluten properly, it is a whole new ball game as a lot of food become out of bounds.
So? I haven't eliminated or cut back on any one specific thing for weight loss purposes, and I eat the GF alternatives. donuts, cakes, brownies, soy sauce, pasta, pizza, yuuuuum.
I was side bowled, too. Are the GF items as readily available as non-GF stuff? Like on the store shelves, at parties, two inches from your face, on your desk at work, in restaurants etc etc. Or do you have to make a lot of them yourself? For me I've found that just making food myself is a great way to cut back on the calories. The recipe calls for a cup of honey and I think, hmm, this would still be great with a quarter cup. Tada! Calories cut. Time spent cooking is also time I wouldn't be stuffing my face, and I've found a tremendous amount of satisfaction in many a case just cooking and enjoying the aromas, that I don't necessarily need as many calories of the food when all is said and done. If I knew eating snacks on people's desks at work would instantly give me projectile vomitting, that would easily save me an average of at least 500 cals per week
Less or slower access to food, whether naturally or artificially created will generally help limit calorie intake
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions