What's the deal with the obsession of sweets?
Replies
-
I have no idea, but I can confess to be pretty irritated when I discovered the little piece of fudge I had planned to eat after dinner last night was moldy.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I can take sweets or leave 'em. Give me some alone-time with a family sized plate of cheddar fries with house ranch on the side, however, I will do shameful things to it.0
-
I'm sorry but that does not mean that sugar is a drug. I can go to eat a great 12 or 14 oz porterhouse and afterwards get very tired and need a nap, does that make the steak a drug?sugar can be an addictive substance for some people. it may cause a 'crash' afterwards in the way caffeine or a drug does, making you feel bad/depressed and thus wanting more sugar to make yourself feel better.
trust me, i know. ;s
god i hate having an eating disorder.
Both sugar and the steak have metabolic impacts on the body. A large meal can make people feel sluggish - it's not an excuse, it's a biological reality. Added sugars cause energy surges and crashes, impact reward pathways in the brain, and add calories without satisfying hunger or giving good nutritional value (unless someone is very active). It's not an excuse, it's a biological reality. Some people have diabetes, some people are prediabetic (many without knowing), and some are just sensitive to sugar. Learning how we respond individually to sugar (and other foods) and taking steps to manage that (like not planning to run a marathon right after eating a 14 oz steak) is taking peronal responsibility.
I have issues with sweets. I accept that many don't, or crave other things, and I know that I'm not in a position to advise them on how to manage their cravings - I don't have the knowledge or the experience. I do have experience with managing sweet cravings, and I find limiting added sugars, water, distraction, waiting it out, and managing health/hunger otherwise helps. I've never found that discounting experience to be particularly helpful, though...
Does that mean I'm addicted to steak?
yes, because reward pathway in your brain ...< based on that line of reasoning you can be addicted to anything that gives you pleasure...
edited to fix typo0 -
AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »I can take sweets or leave 'em. Give me some alone-time with a family sized plate of cheddar fries with house ranch on the side, however, I will do shameful things to it.
how shameful are we talking???? because I might have some cheddar fries and ranch in my office right now and it is my lunch break...0 -
For some people, CICO works without them being consious of it (they maintain healthy weight on an ad libitum diet). Others need skills in addition to CICO to lose weight and maintain that loss. These skills may include logging, better knowledge about food and nutrition, activity, having a job and income that allows them to eat healthy (being overweight is strongly associated with socio-economic status), increased personal awareness (how their bodies respond to different foods, dealing with cravings), non-CICO strategies like drinking water, eating fiber, and checking in with a health professional, and awareness of impact of hormones on hunger, saiety, water retention, metabolism, etc. If the answer was as simple as telling people "CICO = Weight loss", no-one would be over weight, instead of over 50% of people in my country higher than a healthy weight.Get what? I know calories in, calories out works.
An awful lot of people are successful without it. I have never counted a calorie in my life up until a few weeks ago and have stayed within a few kilos of my ideal weight my entire life.
So if you know it works, and you know successful people, how is CICO not sustainable?
I think you're confusing counting calories with the science of how the effect of calories consumed vs. calories burnt works.
Saying "CICO isn't sustainable" is a sentence that doesn't make sense. I think that was the argument/problem all along.
I agree that calorie counting might require some additional skills/knowledge, but science is self-sustaining. I think that was the issue with what was originally said. At least that was the problem I had with it.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »
For some people, CICO works without them being consious of it (they maintain healthy weight on an ad libitum diet). Others need skills in addition to CICO to lose weight and maintain that loss. These skills may include logging, better knowledge about food and nutrition, activity, having a job and income that allows them to eat healthy (being overweight is strongly associated with socio-economic status), increased personal awareness (how their bodies respond to different foods, dealing with cravings), non-CICO strategies like drinking water, eating fiber, and checking in with a health professional, and awareness of impact of hormones on hunger, saiety, water retention, metabolism, etc. If the answer was as simple as telling people "CICO = Weight loss", no-one would be over weight, instead of over 50% of people in my country higher than a healthy weight.Get what? I know calories in, calories out works.
An awful lot of people are successful without it. I have never counted a calorie in my life up until a few weeks ago and have stayed within a few kilos of my ideal weight my entire life.
So if you know it works, and you know successful people, how is CICO not sustainable?
I think you're confusing counting calories with the science of how the effect of calories consumed vs. calories burnt works.
Saying "CICO isn't sustainable" is a sentence that doesn't make sense. I think that was the argument/problem all along.
I agree that calorie counting might require some additional skills/knowledge, but science is self-sustaining. I think that was the issue with what was originally said. At least that was the problem I had with it.
exactly ..
personal choice does not trump CICO0 -
squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »
Who makes these? Def Game changer
I saw a poster put up a "Lindt" brand I think that was a chocolate bar WITH chips in it!!! Not sold in Australia damn it. I thought I was the only one...like to swill it down with a coke too (zero of course lol).
I'm late to the party, but I thought everyone should know that Esther Price makes chocolate covered potato chips. http://www.estherprice.com/product/chocolate-covered-potato-chips/Chocolate_Potato_Chips_Pretzels0 -
That being said, let's not give sugar more power than it has. It's attractive and delicious. But it doesn't send out alien signals, "eat me". There's something more powerful at work; our own hedonistic unconscious. Me, I deal with my inner hedonist by feeding it. Judiciously.
Nice!0 -
AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »I can take sweets or leave 'em. Give me some alone-time with a family sized plate of cheddar fries with house ranch on the side, however, I will do shameful things to it.
how shameful are we talking???? because I might have some cheddar fries and ranch in my office right now and it is my lunch break...
How was it for you?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Sorry, but yes, you're wrong. Because I can eat one small piece of dark chocolate and walk away and leave the rest of the container. Because I had a box of gluten-free Jo-Jo's, and ate my way through them, 2 cookies at a time, just fine.
But brownies? It's about more than the sugar. It's the mouth feel and the taste.
Let's put it this way. I used to smoke. A smoker is not only addicted to the nicotine, but there are also habits that have to be broken like the feel of something in the mouth, and the hands being busy. The mouth and hands aren't addicted, but it's part of what makes quitting hard. they are side issues, apart from the genuine addictive substance.
Now, sugar is not an addictive substance, otherwise it could be proven to be so. However, the thing with me and brownies? It's the side issues are part of what make brownies appealing to me. It's not the sugar. The whole sensory experience. The smell. The contrast of flavors and wanting to continue experiencing that. The mouth feel. Those things are powerful. They're not addicting, but they come together and they test my willpower a bit too much. Just because I'm weak-willed when it comes to one sweet, does not mean that particular food is addictive for me. It means I'm weak.
How am I wrong? You just basically repeated my argument. It's not about the sugar, it's about the smell and taste -- powerful sensory experiences that can overpower self-control. Much like addicts who struggle with craving for their substance of choice even though they are clean, people with food issues struggle with their trigger food.
You're wrong because it's just ONE thing I have a problem with. It's not universal to all chocolate treats or wouldn't even apply to a blondie, which has a similar texture. It's a combination of all the factors.
The thing is that it's still just ME. And who knows, for all I'm blathering about being weak, I haven't tested myself lately. I might be strong enough now to not binge on them. I haven't tried in a while.
I used to think I had a problem with ALL sweets too. I don't. I used to blame sugar too. It wasn't the problem, I was.
I had the same issues with all those other treats. Those issues went beyond the sweetness too. I'm fine with all those other things now.
Have you ever tried Brownie Brittle?
http://browniebrittle.com/0 -
dunnodunno wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Sorry, but yes, you're wrong. Because I can eat one small piece of dark chocolate and walk away and leave the rest of the container. Because I had a box of gluten-free Jo-Jo's, and ate my way through them, 2 cookies at a time, just fine.
But brownies? It's about more than the sugar. It's the mouth feel and the taste.
Let's put it this way. I used to smoke. A smoker is not only addicted to the nicotine, but there are also habits that have to be broken like the feel of something in the mouth, and the hands being busy. The mouth and hands aren't addicted, but it's part of what makes quitting hard. they are side issues, apart from the genuine addictive substance.
Now, sugar is not an addictive substance, otherwise it could be proven to be so. However, the thing with me and brownies? It's the side issues are part of what make brownies appealing to me. It's not the sugar. The whole sensory experience. The smell. The contrast of flavors and wanting to continue experiencing that. The mouth feel. Those things are powerful. They're not addicting, but they come together and they test my willpower a bit too much. Just because I'm weak-willed when it comes to one sweet, does not mean that particular food is addictive for me. It means I'm weak.
How am I wrong? You just basically repeated my argument. It's not about the sugar, it's about the smell and taste -- powerful sensory experiences that can overpower self-control. Much like addicts who struggle with craving for their substance of choice even though they are clean, people with food issues struggle with their trigger food.
You're wrong because it's just ONE thing I have a problem with. It's not universal to all chocolate treats or wouldn't even apply to a blondie, which has a similar texture. It's a combination of all the factors.
The thing is that it's still just ME. And who knows, for all I'm blathering about being weak, I haven't tested myself lately. I might be strong enough now to not binge on them. I haven't tried in a while.
I used to think I had a problem with ALL sweets too. I don't. I used to blame sugar too. It wasn't the problem, I was.
I had the same issues with all those other treats. Those issues went beyond the sweetness too. I'm fine with all those other things now.
Have you ever tried Brownie Brittle?
http://browniebrittle.com/
Thank all that is holy it's not gluten free and I can't have it tempting me with its siren song
(I have celiac disease.)
0 -
dunnodunno wrote: »Measure your food @kyta32, measure your food.
I don't wanna. When I started weighing my yogurt, I found out I wasn't eating enough. So then I put in more, and the bowl was too full, and stuff would spill out when I tried to mix in my protein powder. It's easier just to eyeball. And besides, I'm losing 3-4 pounds a week. I heard measuring food leads to faster weight loss, and I don't think that would be safe....
Why don't you use a bigger bowl then? You could always buy a blender & mix some yogurt, milk, frozen banana, a few tablespoons of peanut butter, & whatever else you want to mix & make a breakfast smoothie/shake (after you measure the ingredients).
I'm very, very lazy. My daughter begs me to make smoothies, but getting the blender cleaned afterwards just seems like such a chore. And, I don't have the discretionary calories to add in a banana and tablespoons of peanut butter. I don't want to use a big bowl, because I use them for other things, and then I might run out. I'm also cheap. If I use the full amount of greek yogurt that I'm logging, I'll run out sooner, and then I have to come up with the money to buy more sooner. I just weighed my chia seeds for the first time, and realized 15 g is close to 2 tablespoons, not one....It just costs so much, and takes so much time to eat healthier...And I haven't even had a weight loss stall yet. Weighing food is just too stressful to do before I have to.
You could use half a banana, half a tablespoon of peanut butter, & if you would weigh your yogurt it could be any gram amount you want. If the gram amount was 227 for a cup you could use 97 grams & divide that by 227 to get your total calorie amount.0 -
dunnodunno wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Sorry, but yes, you're wrong. Because I can eat one small piece of dark chocolate and walk away and leave the rest of the container. Because I had a box of gluten-free Jo-Jo's, and ate my way through them, 2 cookies at a time, just fine.
But brownies? It's about more than the sugar. It's the mouth feel and the taste.
Let's put it this way. I used to smoke. A smoker is not only addicted to the nicotine, but there are also habits that have to be broken like the feel of something in the mouth, and the hands being busy. The mouth and hands aren't addicted, but it's part of what makes quitting hard. they are side issues, apart from the genuine addictive substance.
Now, sugar is not an addictive substance, otherwise it could be proven to be so. However, the thing with me and brownies? It's the side issues are part of what make brownies appealing to me. It's not the sugar. The whole sensory experience. The smell. The contrast of flavors and wanting to continue experiencing that. The mouth feel. Those things are powerful. They're not addicting, but they come together and they test my willpower a bit too much. Just because I'm weak-willed when it comes to one sweet, does not mean that particular food is addictive for me. It means I'm weak.
How am I wrong? You just basically repeated my argument. It's not about the sugar, it's about the smell and taste -- powerful sensory experiences that can overpower self-control. Much like addicts who struggle with craving for their substance of choice even though they are clean, people with food issues struggle with their trigger food.
You're wrong because it's just ONE thing I have a problem with. It's not universal to all chocolate treats or wouldn't even apply to a blondie, which has a similar texture. It's a combination of all the factors.
The thing is that it's still just ME. And who knows, for all I'm blathering about being weak, I haven't tested myself lately. I might be strong enough now to not binge on them. I haven't tried in a while.
I used to think I had a problem with ALL sweets too. I don't. I used to blame sugar too. It wasn't the problem, I was.
I had the same issues with all those other treats. Those issues went beyond the sweetness too. I'm fine with all those other things now.
Have you ever tried Brownie Brittle?
http://browniebrittle.com/
Oh sweet Jeebus! That stuff is amazing. A coworker friend shared a piece with me and it was all I could do to not steal the whole bag from her.
0 -
Kyta, how can you be losing 4-5 lbs/week and not have the discretionary calories for a banana? Perhaps you should have more calories?0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Kyta, how can you be losing 4-5 lbs/week and not have the discretionary calories for a banana? Perhaps you should have more calories?
MFP says I should be eating 1200 calories a day. I'm not too hungry on 1200 calories, but it's hard to add any extras and stay under, and not have to give something up (like protein). I already have my protein powder and greek yogurt planned out. If I add a banana and peanut butter, that's probably about 200 calories that need to come out of something else. I'm usually going over on carbs (I'm a carb freak), so bananas aren't a good add on. I find keeping dairy in my diet essential for my success (I've had 2-3 diets fail due to dairy binge). I'm already lower than 2 full servings of dairy a day, and don't want to drop any of my greek yogurt. Peanut butter is a trigger food for me. It starts with a lick, and quickly becomes a problem. I prefer to avoid it. If I drop my afternoon snack (1/2 grapefruit and 1 tbs trail mix) I could probably fit in an extra 1/2 banana and 1 tbs peanut butter in my morning snack, but I like my grapefruit, and I'm not hungry enough to eat extras in the morning snack. Also, it seems like a waste to use the blender (that fits several cups) for just 1 serving of food...
I know I sound ungrateful and mean about this suggestion, and the person who made the suggestion deserves better. I get kinda possessive about my food when I'm dieting (I avoid accepting food from other people, so I don't have to give up the meals I've planned). I'm trying to get better about it, but it's a stretch goal.
I've recently gone from obese to overweight, and my deficit is shrinking. My weight loss should slow down on it's own soon. Isn't it better to practice lower calorie intakes ahead of time? I expect I'll be hitting the weight loss stalls in another 30 pounds, and then I'll start weighing food. Also, I'm only averaging 3-4 pounds a week lost (not unreasonable for the obese), and I've had a couple of weeks where I've lost less than two. I just find weighing food frustrating, and the whole figuring out how much less yogurt I would have to eat to fit in x grams of banana and y grams of peanut butter - ugh...Isn't dieting hard enough already?0 -
neveragain84 wrote: »dunnodunno wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
Sorry, but yes, you're wrong. Because I can eat one small piece of dark chocolate and walk away and leave the rest of the container. Because I had a box of gluten-free Jo-Jo's, and ate my way through them, 2 cookies at a time, just fine.
But brownies? It's about more than the sugar. It's the mouth feel and the taste.
Let's put it this way. I used to smoke. A smoker is not only addicted to the nicotine, but there are also habits that have to be broken like the feel of something in the mouth, and the hands being busy. The mouth and hands aren't addicted, but it's part of what makes quitting hard. they are side issues, apart from the genuine addictive substance.
Now, sugar is not an addictive substance, otherwise it could be proven to be so. However, the thing with me and brownies? It's the side issues are part of what make brownies appealing to me. It's not the sugar. The whole sensory experience. The smell. The contrast of flavors and wanting to continue experiencing that. The mouth feel. Those things are powerful. They're not addicting, but they come together and they test my willpower a bit too much. Just because I'm weak-willed when it comes to one sweet, does not mean that particular food is addictive for me. It means I'm weak.
How am I wrong? You just basically repeated my argument. It's not about the sugar, it's about the smell and taste -- powerful sensory experiences that can overpower self-control. Much like addicts who struggle with craving for their substance of choice even though they are clean, people with food issues struggle with their trigger food.
You're wrong because it's just ONE thing I have a problem with. It's not universal to all chocolate treats or wouldn't even apply to a blondie, which has a similar texture. It's a combination of all the factors.
The thing is that it's still just ME. And who knows, for all I'm blathering about being weak, I haven't tested myself lately. I might be strong enough now to not binge on them. I haven't tried in a while.
I used to think I had a problem with ALL sweets too. I don't. I used to blame sugar too. It wasn't the problem, I was.
I had the same issues with all those other treats. Those issues went beyond the sweetness too. I'm fine with all those other things now.
Have you ever tried Brownie Brittle?
http://browniebrittle.com/
Oh sweet Jeebus! That stuff is amazing. A coworker friend shared a piece with me and it was all I could do to not steal the whole bag from her.
I found it at Wal-Mart's Bakery.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Kyta, how can you be losing 4-5 lbs/week and not have the discretionary calories for a banana? Perhaps you should have more calories?
MFP says I should be eating 1200 calories a day. I'm not too hungry on 1200 calories, but it's hard to add any extras and stay under, and not have to give something up (like protein).
If you are losing 4-5 lbs/week, 1200 is obviously off. Sometimes it is--I was losing 3 lbs/week on 1250 when I first started, when MFP said I'd lose 1.5 (I think my activity setting was wrong, but I was pretty fat so thought it was okay). I do wonder if you are accounting for exercise calories, though. Sounds like you should eat more than 1200.I've recently gone from obese to overweight, and my deficit is shrinking. My weight loss should slow down on it's own soon. Isn't it better to practice lower calorie intakes ahead of time? I expect I'll be hitting the weight loss stalls in another 30 pounds, and then I'll start weighing food. Also, I'm only averaging 3-4 pounds a week lost (not unreasonable for the obese), and I've had a couple of weeks where I've lost less than two. I just find weighing food frustrating, and the whole figuring out how much less yogurt I would have to eat to fit in x grams of banana and y grams of peanut butter - ugh...Isn't dieting hard enough already?
I started at 1250 and, as I've added exercise, have gradually increased my calories, first to 1400 and then to 1600, in preparation for maintenance. Now I'm trying to go up to 1700 (at 1650 as step one), where I will stay to let it slow down on its own (I'm 6 lbs from my initial goal of 120). My point here is that your maintenance won't be 1200, and there's no reason to assume you will need to keep your calories that low.
One reason I'm raising mine is that I've gotten concerned about losing lean body mass even though I've been weight training. Since my longer term goal is to increase mine some, that's not a good way to lose weight IMO.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions