Don't read this if brutal honesty (or profanity) offends you..
Replies
-
It's funny too... I mean, who is he to categorize things as treats? What's a 'treat' anyway? Some people will consider a PB&J sandwich a treat. Is it? And wine... seriously? He's talking about how people ate 100 years ago, well where I come from, I'm quite sure they drank wine quite regularly. And ate cake (or at least muffins, but heck, what's the difference?). And cookies. But according to him, those are 'treats'? Totally ridiculous argument. Basically, if it tastes good, we shouldn't have it? Sorry but F that *kitten*.
I thought this was kind of funny too. Ultimately some people like to conceptualize foods as treats and some don't, maybe, but unless you think the answer to weight loss is thinking of food only in a utilitarian way or not caring about the pleasure of it--which is just never going to be me--I imagine there will be treats. I was annoyed at how little discipline I had around Christmas and that I seemed to have slipped into a habit where I wanted my ice cream every night, even if I'd had whatever else during the day, and wanted to get back to it being a once in a while when I have the calories sort of thing, so I gave up added sugar in January. But what I found was that I was still having treats (I had plenty of calories), it's just they were different treats: a bit of cheese after dinner, olives, a banana and yogurt, extra steak, so on. I guess I could have slammed down on thinking about it this way, but for me there didn't seem to be a point. In fact, on the whole I like to think I thoroughly enjoy everything I eat. So for me a good weight loss plan isn't really about sacrifice, it's about convincing myself (and making it so) I realize that eating in a way conducive to losing and maintaining doesn't really require significant sacrifice and is plenty enjoyable.
And, sure, it means that those times where I really want to have the pizza AND the dessert out later or when I want my ice cream but don't have the calories, well, I can tell myself not today and it's no big thing (or at least a doable thing, because adults don't indulge whenever they feel like it).
0 -
The problem, as I see it, is that there's a good number of people who have no idea how to hit macros, eat for satiety within a budget, or moderate intake. A lot of people's tastebuds have been trained on those low-value, high-cal foods. There's nothing wrong with any of those foods in isolation, but the great probability, given what we know from public health research, is that overweight or obese people are not eating those foods in isolation or with moderation. People talk about foods in context - yes, but the larger socioeconomic context is that many, many overweight people are eating too much fast food (for a range of reasons).
I actually haven't noticed this as a major player in the "clean" vs. moderation debates around here. The moderation people, as noted above, seem perfectly good at eating for satiety in a budget and so on and to enjoy healthy (as you used it) foods, etc. To me to suggest that a fat person (or a person wanting to lose) must be not eating healthy foods, cramming her face with fast food and junk food only, etc., and thus must eat "clean" because she has no self control is really quite insulting and basically implies that being fat means you are dumb.
I think most people are smarter than that, or at least have some basic degree of common sense if forced to (enough to dress and feed themselves anyway), and thus they will figure out when working with a calorie deficit what makes them full and what doesn't, what foods have positive effects on them and what has negative effects, etc. But I think people learn more when they figure it out for themselves and understand why it works and doesn't and not when they are just told some rule like "don't eat white carbs" or "eat 6 mini meals" that they then go on to apply in some kind of obsessive way because they are led to believe it's some magic weight loss rule that will doom the hold enterprise if broken. (Does this go against my common sense argument above? Maybe, but people seem really inclined to believe silly things when it's a question of that vs. having to actually do the boring longer term process of controlling calories over time."Eat however you want, just hit your targets" is a hard rule for people to apply when they're planning their meals. It requires an intermediate understanding of nutrition. "Eat healthy most of the time, and treat treats as treats" offers rules of thumb that are easier to understand and more likely to help people meet their targets. There are people who really wonder why they're still hungry on 1700 calories, and it's often because they're eating too much of that low-value food.
Again, I think this assumes that the people you are talking about are basically idiots. Figuring out how to eat is super simple if people stop thinking it's something other than basic common sense, eat some protein and veggies, have a balanced plate like you always thought of as a normal meal.
Of course, a big part of this is that a lot of people don't want to control calories and eat their veggies (we see this constantly on MFP). So they want something magic like "if I stop eating sugar I'll drop weight and never get fat and stop being tempted by food entirely." And sure, maybe they will, but I for one can easily get fat on food that contains no sugar at all.0 -
This forum's full of people making a hash of figuring it out for themselves, though, setting themselves up for disappointment or failure - trial and error without some kind of guidance doesn't seem to get them far.
I don't think people are stupid at all. I recognize that people very often rely on heuristics, and that not everyone has the time or inclination to wade through the tons of information that's out there. "Eat your five-a-day" has a ring to it, and it sticks, know what I mean?0 -
To me to suggest that a fat person (or a person wanting to lose) must be not eating healthy foods, cramming her face with fast food and junk food only, etc., and thus must eat "clean" because she has no self control is really quite insulting and basically implies that being fat means you are dumb.
What I said was that given what we know about the North American food industry and obesity rates, it is likely that fast food plays into it for many overweight people. I didn't say, "every fat person is dumb". That's your own reading, not what I meant at all.
And even if people are "cramming their faces" with fast/junk food, I don't see that as a question of cleverness or willpower (or lack thereof).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »But I think people learn more when they figure it out for themselves and understand why it works and doesn't and not when they are just told some rule like "don't eat white carbs" or "eat 6 mini meals" that they then go on to apply in some kind of obsessive way because they are led to believe it's some magic weight loss rule that will doom the hold enterprise if broken. (Does this go against my common sense argument above? Maybe, but people seem really inclined to believe silly things when it's a question of that vs. having to actually do the boring longer term process of controlling calories over time.
Yes, it goes against your common sense argument and supports the argument that people, particularly when they lack information or time, or are under emotional pressure (like desperation to lose weight), rely on rules of thumb.0 -
This forum's full of people making a hash of figuring it out for themselves, though, setting themselves up for disappointment or failure - trial and error without some kind of guidance doesn't seem to get them far.
I don't think people are stupid at all. I recognize that people very often rely on heuristics, and that not everyone has the time or inclination to wade through the tons of information that's out there. "Eat your five-a-day" has a ring to it, and it sticks, know what I mean?
Yeah, and it's basically good advice and what I called what everyone already knows. Eat your veggies, eat some fruit if you like it, get some protein, get some good sources of fiber, minimize low nutrient dense foods but also eat a diet that you enjoy and find satisfying and for many people that will probably include some "processed carbs" or sweets or whatever and that's perfectly healthy. Just be sensible and don't pretend like you think something is "moderation" when it's clearly not.
I'm not against some general advice about what a healthy diet consists of (although everyone already knows, some just don't care or want to eat that way, and that's their choice). I'm against this silly idea that if you've been eating very badly and high calorie the only option is to "eat clean" and pretend to cut out all "processed" foods and sugar or whatever else. Maybe that will help, but maybe try just eating sensibly for a bit and not make it all or nothing.
I really think that people have this mindset that a diet must demand something extreme to work, it can't just be cutting calories or eating regular food, because that will mean they were eating too much and not that the foods were to blame.0 -
This forum's full of people making a hash of figuring it out for themselves, though, setting themselves up for disappointment or failure - trial and error without some kind of guidance doesn't seem to get them far.
Is it? It seems to me that the people who are least successful are either those not ready who make excuses (and who I think are told they should lose weight more than are interested in doing what is needed) or those who buy into the lose weight quick schemes (which often are the "no white carbs" sorts of things. I don't see people doing moderation and failing badly as you seem to assume.
But anyway I'm absolutely not against helping people or guidance, and I haven't noticed that in others.
I'm against telling people they must eat clean (which means nothing) or can't eat white carbs or stupid stuff like that.
Edit: and for me part of being successful requires LEARNING and UNDERSTANDING. Not deciding that a perfectly normal human being is too stupid to figure out how to eat or what works for her. I know that's my word not yours, but really it's an inescapable conclusion. It's a basic part of adulthood. For example, someone who counts calories is going to see that she's spending a ton on soda and likely modify behavior.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I really think that people have this mindset that a diet must demand something extreme to work, it can't just be cutting calories or eating regular food, because that will mean they were eating too much and not that the foods were to blame.
The desire for a quick solution, I think, is lack of knowledge about what's involved in setting up a weight loss program for success, wishful thinking (e.g ."my wedding's in two months"), and constant exposure to diet scams and bad-faith marketing.lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yeah, and it's basically good advice and what I called what everyone already knows. Eat your veggies, eat some fruit if you like it, get some protein, get some good sources of fiber, minimize low nutrient dense foods but also eat a diet that you enjoy and find satisfying and for many people that will probably include some "processed carbs" or sweets or whatever and that's perfectly healthy. Just be sensible and don't pretend like you think something is "moderation" when it's clearly not.
I'm not against some general advice about what a healthy diet consists of (although everyone already knows, some just don't care or want to eat that way, and that's their choice). I'm against this silly idea that if you've been eating very badly and high calorie the only option is to "eat clean" and pretend to cut out all "processed" foods and sugar or whatever else. Maybe that will help, but maybe try just eating sensibly for a bit and not make it all or nothing.
Yeah, I agree, it shouldn't be presented as the only option. I think it can be useful as a temporary bridge, though, for those who have a hard time eating sensibly or moderately.0 -
Hmm. I looked back to figure out how we ended up so off-topic, and I really don't disagree with much that you said (other than the generalizations).
I think it's simply that it's out of context. When someone posts "should I eat veggies" or "why am I hungry on 1800," you generally do get lots of practical advice (and it always turns out the person really knew the answer, IMO). But without that context it comes across differently--like you are lecturing those of us who argue for moderation as if we didn't understand eating healthy or the like. So sorry if I read too quick and misinterpreted.
I do really strongly feel like part of being an adult and owning this is figuring out what works for you, and thus I strongly dislike prepackaged plans or the desire to be told what to eat or the willingness to follow dumb rules like no white carbs or no eating after 6 or whatever without an understanding of them.0 -
She has brought this up sooo many times in the past in an attempt to win a point/argument, and she never uses proper logic, i.e. thinking that omitting something from one's diet for medical purposes is the same as eliminating something because you think it's "bad" for you and will hinder progress/make you fat.
Not my argument at all.
I haven't ever suggested that someone eliminate a food because I or anyone else thinks it's "bad for you." I'm not one of the good food v bad food people.
Also, I don't think certain foods in and of themselves make people fat. Extra calories make people fat, not the food itself.
I do believe that binging hinders progress. Call me crazy there.
I can't believe, after all these threads, you are still unable to accurately characterize my argument.0 -
There are all kinds of failures in the forum. Many are failing because they don't even have rudimentary understanding of how their bodies work. Many others fail even though they do have decent understanding because they find it very hard to actually follow through. Some fail because they restrict foods, others fail because they don't restrict foods.
There's no one perspective here.
And at the end of the day, even those who succeed for a good length of time, end up failing again anyway, despite doing everything "right" for so long.
Pretending it is easy to lose weight and keep it off doesn't help anybody.
0 -
I am not keen on aggressive tones but I wasn't offended by this post at all. The swearing is so unnecessary but anyway I could see some of what I was doing in his post. I work from home yet I actually believed I didn't have the time to work out. I used to believe I didn't eat a lot it was the type of food I was eating. Logging in the first week opened my eyes. All those little bags of crisps and chocolates really add up esp when you add them to 3 meals a day.
So every obese person needs to read this and then it's up to them what they Decide to do with themselves.
I am a believer of fitting what you fancy if it fits in your goals. Also for the people who like the clean eating only that's fine too but stop calling food crap just because you have decided to stop eating certain foods. It's not helpful to other people. There are a lot of people who actually believe you have to cut out bread pasta and rice and all sweet things to succeed. This sets some for a big failure. Then you get these strange posts like I have eaten pizza I am a failure or help me I can't eat more than 800 calories. why can't we just learn to eat in moderation.0 -
Dismissing a post about dismissal? Both ironic and meta.herrspoons wrote: »
Hmmm... really? A narcissist?
I wouldn't call this guy a narcissist based on this blog post. He's just calling it like it is.
The act of dismissing all criticism with the phrase "I'm just telling it like it is" is a classic characteristic of the narcissist. It's usually the first red flag.
No it isn't.0 -
It's so funny because it's true.
Hmmm... really? A narcissist?
I wouldn't call this guy a narcissist based on this blog post. He's just calling it like it is.
The act of dismissing all criticism with the phrase "I'm just telling it like it is" is a classic characteristic of the narcissist. It's usually the first red flag.0 -
Well this skewed off in some strange directions. The reason I posted the article is that I thought the author was making an important point: Take responsibility for yourself and your actions. Blaming your environment or other factors will always be a recipe for failure.
I don't believe he is saying you can never fail or falter, you almost certainly will. But you can learn from that failure and move on. If you are in this for your health, well being and future, you know that this is a journey, not a destination.
MFP and a rigorous exercise program works for me. It may not be for everybody but whatever path you take, stick with it. Most responsible programs will work if you stay with them, guaranteed nothing will, if you don't.
Also words to remember:
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Richard P. Feynman
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_p_feynman.html#K3LjylxckrWviAm7.990 -
herrspoons wrote: »Also, a 50 kcal bit of chocolate isn't a treat. The whole bar is.
Rocket science it's not.
Yet the author puts chocolate as an example of his definition of treat (ie, that should only be a once in a while thing). That's what I have a problem with... Heck everything that tastes good is a treat for me, does it mean I should never eat them? SMH.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Also, a 50 kcal bit of chocolate isn't a treat. The whole bar is.
Rocket science it's not.
How about this: different people use the term treat differently. It's not unreasonable to think of a bit of chocolate or a bit of cheese as a treat, and that's what many mean when they say they work in treats every day.
It's probably clear what the author was getting at, however, and that it is treats that cause one to go over a reasonable calorie limit or otherwise be unable to lose. But it was wording that won't resonate with everyone because of this other usage.0 -
I didn't read all the comments, but I LOVE this. I might just print it out and hang it in my kitchen, just to remind me when I'm being a whiny little *****0
-
Author seems a bit plump0
-
Bump for later
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions