what is a food you have cut from your diet with some success?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think anybody who has deliberately lost weight HAS grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures. Those that choose to eliminate certain foods have just decided that those foods don't fit their goals nearly as well as other available choices....and I suspect many of them like and enjoy the foods they do eat.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »emilyr0011 wrote: »What have I let go of? Late night snacking and eating past 6pm. Also fast food, chocolate (which is my weakness), sugars and anything fried. Bread, rice, pizza, and pasta are things I refuse to eat right now. So far its been 2 weeks of clean eating, and I'm already down 11 pounds. I am thinking I was having at least 3,000 calories a day before this.
I do have a cheat meal (controlling my portion) once a week.
what a sad, sad, world that must be...
Why is that a sad world? Apparently she's pleased with the choice of eating more nutrient dense foods instead of foods that don't provide nutrients, which is actually a good thing to some people. So she's happy with her choices and the progress she's made - good.
Why do you jump around these forums just smartazzing all over the place? I mean, really? Oh wait, it's a public forum so everyone has the right to. This is the thing - you probably really do have some really good information to share, but douchebaggery turns people's ears away and tunes you out.
Typically people that restrict certain foods, that they actually like, fail due to it not being sustainable over long periods of time. Especially if it's a long list.
To lose weight everyone needs to cut something. Whether you cut out a little of everything or all of a few things, you still are likely to regain the weight.
That something being caloric intake regardless of source. I would wager one would be less likely to regain the weight if they grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures instead of just eliminating foods they like and enjoy.
This is one reason why I don't think "I have eliminated X" is really necessary. If you set goals, you may end up never (or almost never) eating X, because you always prefer to eat Y, given the context.
To take one example brought up here, I NEVER drink juice. I just can't see any reason to do so, when I could eat the fruit instead, given my own preferences and priorities. But if one day I woke up dying for a glass of orange juice and eating an orange or drinking something else just wouldn't cut it, I'd probably go find some orange juice somewhere, because why not? And then I probably wouldn't have it again for another year.
Thus, I honestly don't understand the purpose of cutting out juice.
Edit: not picking on juice in particular or cutting things out, but just interested in what seems to be different preferred ways of thinking about this.
This seems an argument of semantics. One person says "I've cut juice from my diet" another says "I don't cut anything, but I never drink juice."
It's the same thing other then the word choice.
I think so too. I'm trying to understand the perceived benefit of saying "I've cut out X," especially for those who claim to occasionally still eat the food in question. There seems to be this misunderstanding that if you don't officially cut out some food that you must eat it all the time, and that's clearly nonsense.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it's just the way they normally talk. Does there have to be a benefit to word choice?
Given how many debates there are on this forum about cutting out foods vs. moderation and how weird it is that much of the time what people are talking about isn't that different, I think exploring why you choose one description vs. another is interesting.
And, yes, I think word choice matters. I think it often frames how you think about something, which is why I resist the "bad foods" terminology. Here I'm not really bothered by the word choice (although it just feels inaccurate to me in many cases), so I'm simply curious about it.
The thing about word choice is everyone projects their own feelings about the word onto what they read. I say "I've cut out soda". You respond with "You don't have to cut soda".
Clearly you have projected your feeling about my word choice, since I never even suggested that I felt I had to cut it.
I did not say "you don't have to cut out soda." I would only say that if a poster said something like: "I have given up diet soda because I am trying to lose weight and know that it is just as bad for that as regular soda. But it is SO HARD!!! How do you cut soda."
To posts like that--or which use less clear words but sound to me like they may be similar--I DO say that for many or most people there is no need to cut diet soda to lose weight, because it has no calories. Some claim that it affects their palate or makes them crave more sweets, but that has never been the case for me. Thus, if you don't want to cut it you probably don't need to and I would experiment. There's lots of false information spread about dieting and the claim that you can't lose weight drinking diet soda is definitely one of them. However. I have cut out diet soda for periods of time, as part of an overall break from caffeine, since I am susceptible to caffeine addiction and prefer to avoid it, and how I do it is X,Y, and Z. If you aren't interested in cutting caffeine but want try cutting diet soda to see how it affects you, I find it easy to do by subbing homemade iced tea or even hot tea or coffee. However, for me trying to do too many things at once can be difficult, so I intentionally avoided cutting things I enjoy that aren't bad for weight loss, like caffeine, when I first started and was having a hard enough time just making sure I was eating the right calories and changing other, more significant habits. IMO, that is what worked best for me, but of course you will have to decide what works for you.
The reason I think there's a possible (often made pretty clear) that the person thinks she HAS TO give up diet soda to be successful, is because that's a common belief that plenty of people have expressed. Thus, it should be debunked. As soon as the person says "I realize that but want to give up diet soda for my teeth" or some such or just says she wants to see if it affects her taste, I say great.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think most people don't cut out a food because they think that particular food is going to make them fat/be horrendously bad for them, but simply because they acknowledge it's high calorie and 9 times out of 10 they feel it's not worth making other sacrifices or exercising extra for. It's much easier to say 'I've cut out brownies/I don't eat brownies' than to qualify that with 'I usually don't eat brownies because I don't really like the texture, I only used to eat them because I have a bad habit of never turning down food, so it doesn't make sense to go without my morning snack and just have salad for lunch to squeeze them in because I'd rather have a beer after work because I enjoy that a lot more; but in theory if I really wanted a brownie once every 6 months I might go for it, just usually if I want something sweet I'd get ice cream because that tastes better'.
At least that's what I'd assume.
But you still don't have to say "I've cut out brownies," especially if you don't really want the brownie. You can just say "no, thanks" or "not in the mood" or "saving calories for my dinner out tonight" if you feel compelled to explain (I don't see why you would have to, or get into details at all). Or "I rarely eat sweets" or, as others here have said, "I only eat sweets when they seem really worth it to me based on my own preferences." My sense--and I could be wrong--is that this "cut it out" usage is more about telling yourself that you don't eat certain foods?
Why get so hung up on the word "cut". Seriously, this seems such a common thing I just really don't understand.
Do you have have to say it? Certainly not. But there nothing at all wrong with saying it.
For me, it's not that it's wrong per se. I've attempted to understand this before. I don't understand the psychology behind it... especially for people who aren't really cutting it and who are just very, very, very rarely and only under extremely special circumstances eating the foods. Or people who are doing what lemurcat suggested, just not partaking of foods they don't particularly care to partake of because they don't want them that much. I'm not one much for cake. You'll never see me go out of my way to eat it. I'm not cutting out cake, I just am meh about it. Have I eaten it before? Sure. I had a sweet tooth. Any port in a storm. I'm pickier about my foods now.
I guess I just don't understand why we need to understand the psychology behind every word. Or how you could ever determine that from a forum post.
I don't drink coffee. Everyone I know knows this about me. But sometimes when I get a bad headache the caffeine helps and I'll have a strong cup of coffee. I don't feel that saying "I don't drink coffee" is untrue because on the rare occasion I might drink it, or that I need to start saying "I don't drink coffee, unless I have a bad headache."
I also stopped drinking soda years ago. That's what I say "I stopped drinking soda". Because "I cut soda" is not a familiar way for me to talk. If I'm somewhere and all there is to drink is soda, I'll drink soda if I'm thirsty.
People are different and come from different cultures and regions that have different ways of phrasing things.
I don't NEED to understand the psychology behind it, I'm just curious about it because I find it interesting beyond just shrugging my shoulders and saying "people are different, yo".
I'd like to have a friendly discussion about it with someone, and tried to, but it ended up with them getting all defensive.
So maybe I'll start laying why I use the language I use out there on the line. I like words, and find qualifiers like "usually don't", and "for the most part", or "rarely", quite sufficient to explain my consumption of certain things that I hardly ever eat. I'm talking stuff I might only eat say, once a year like the cheese fries on vacation. Have I given up fries? No. I eat them, once a year. On vacation. They are the only fries I've tasted that are good enough to be worth the calories.
That has been a pretty consistent pattern with me for a while, even before coming to MFP, me and those fries.
I can't say to myself that I "gave up fries", because I know in my head that I still eat them. I don't see how the "I gave up xyz" (but yeah, I'll still eat it under certain conditions) crowd lives with the cognitive dissonance. Or why they'd want to, and what they'd get out of it. Isn't it easier to just be honest about it all? I'm not trying to be provocative here, I'm really trying to understand, because as I said, there really is just a simply way of stating... "I just about never eat donuts." It implies everything that needs to be said quite nicely.
"lives with the cognitive dissonance"
Well, since I say "I stopped drinking soda", even though I do occasionally drink it, let me see if I can explain why. Honestly, I've never given it much thought, but I guess the reason is that I hope to never drink soda again. But, if I'm thirsty and soda is what's available I'm not going to stay thirsty out of principle.
Same with coffee. Though that is not something I cut or stopped. I never drank it.
That's how I am with most fast food or microwave meals. I didn't cut them out. I just don't eat them normally. But some huge point seems to be being made by the OP about cutting out foods being beneficial, with the implication that if you don't "cut them out" you eat them lots. That's clearly not true. It's a weird way to think about food to me: did you cut X out?0 -
Chili cheese corn chips and crunch and munch. I cannot eat just a little bit of either one, so they never enter my home. It they aren't there, I can't eat 'em. I had a little relapse with cookies, but they are on my exiled list now too.0
-
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »Cottage cheese.
That crap is nasty.
Then, you didn't add it or did you force yourself to eat it before?
0 -
I don't need to experience it myself.[/quote]FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
“And even when they refuse to listen, I'll keep talking anyway, hoping on a slim chance that the things inside my head are worth something to someone.”
― Nadège Richards, 5 Miles0 -
Occasionally I cut a donut. . . . .in half. Spoon some of the filling out, eat half, save half for later in the day. So, Boston Creme tomorrow and I will probably cut it in half. We shall see....I may ask how they make their donuts. hehehehe as if. . . . .nvm0
-
To me there is no benefit to saying I've cut out X. But there is also no drawback associated with saying it that way. I say I've cut out sweets simply because that's how I think of it. Those are the words that come out when a friend asks about how I eat.lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think anybody who has deliberately lost weight HAS grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures. Those that choose to eliminate certain foods have just decided that those foods don't fit their goals nearly as well as other available choices....and I suspect many of them like and enjoy the foods they do eat.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »emilyr0011 wrote: »What have I let go of? Late night snacking and eating past 6pm. Also fast food, chocolate (which is my weakness), sugars and anything fried. Bread, rice, pizza, and pasta are things I refuse to eat right now. So far its been 2 weeks of clean eating, and I'm already down 11 pounds. I am thinking I was having at least 3,000 calories a day before this.
I do have a cheat meal (controlling my portion) once a week.
what a sad, sad, world that must be...
Why is that a sad world? Apparently she's pleased with the choice of eating more nutrient dense foods instead of foods that don't provide nutrients, which is actually a good thing to some people. So she's happy with her choices and the progress she's made - good.
Why do you jump around these forums just smartazzing all over the place? I mean, really? Oh wait, it's a public forum so everyone has the right to. This is the thing - you probably really do have some really good information to share, but douchebaggery turns people's ears away and tunes you out.
Typically people that restrict certain foods, that they actually like, fail due to it not being sustainable over long periods of time. Especially if it's a long list.
To lose weight everyone needs to cut something. Whether you cut out a little of everything or all of a few things, you still are likely to regain the weight.
That something being caloric intake regardless of source. I would wager one would be less likely to regain the weight if they grasped the concepts of caloric values and expenditures instead of just eliminating foods they like and enjoy.
This is one reason why I don't think "I have eliminated X" is really necessary. If you set goals, you may end up never (or almost never) eating X, because you always prefer to eat Y, given the context.
To take one example brought up here, I NEVER drink juice. I just can't see any reason to do so, when I could eat the fruit instead, given my own preferences and priorities. But if one day I woke up dying for a glass of orange juice and eating an orange or drinking something else just wouldn't cut it, I'd probably go find some orange juice somewhere, because why not? And then I probably wouldn't have it again for another year.
Thus, I honestly don't understand the purpose of cutting out juice.
Edit: not picking on juice in particular or cutting things out, but just interested in what seems to be different preferred ways of thinking about this.
This seems an argument of semantics. One person says "I've cut juice from my diet" another says "I don't cut anything, but I never drink juice."
It's the same thing other then the word choice.
I think so too. I'm trying to understand the perceived benefit of saying "I've cut out X," especially for those who claim to occasionally still eat the food in question. There seems to be this misunderstanding that if you don't officially cut out some food that you must eat it all the time, and that's clearly nonsense.
It's not that I ever made a decision to use those words. But saying "cut out" or "eliminated" are just the way that seems most natural to express that.
By the way, saying cut out doesn't cause me any stress. If looking at it that way made me feel deprived then perhaps I would try using different words. But it doesn't, so I don't have an issue with it. Different people react differently to these kinds of things. I have certainly had my share of issues with food...I mentioned this earlier...but the words I use or way I thought about it never really played a part in any of that...for me...somebody else could have a very different experience obviously.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »For example, caramels vs. peanut butter. I like both, both are high in calories. I eat peanut butter almost every day...sometimes 300-400 calories worth. Yet I almost never eat caramels. Why the different treatment?
Natural peanut butter is just peanuts and salt so sets off no cravings in me. Despite my adoration of peanut butter, I never get the urge to eat all of it. So for me, it is an infinitely better choice than caramels, which are basically just sugar...which I also like but which WILL set off cravings and might result in a binge. Two choices...two things I like just about equally...I pick the one with no downside.
See for me, let's say this is a choice between caramels and cheese. I also like both, but I eat cheese frequently and caramels almost never. NOT because I've cut out caramels (even though I generally don't eat them), but because my goals only allow so much stuff that's basically just calories and sugar, and caramels don't make the cut (high quality chocolate or ice cream might). Cheese does make the cut (I know it's not sugary, not saying that) either because I like it more or it brings something more to the table--fat or protein--or tends to be more satisfying (although to be honest I'm as likely to want more cheese as more caramels).
That is to say, I don't think the only reason for not choosing a food is because you don't like it or have cut it out. There are only so many foods we can eat in a day and choices must be made. That I choose salmon a lot and sausage rarely doesn't mean I've cut out sausage, it just means it's far less likely to meet my goals on a regular basis than the alternatives.Calories aren't the problem. The peanut butter calories easily fit. I could simply replace that with caramels once in a while if I wanted to eat them... but the sugar in caramels causes cravings I find very difficult to manage. If I buy it, the cravings will come back. Just not worth it. I am ashamed to admit I have eaten entire containers of fleur de sel caramels in one sitting many times. I have never eaten an entire jar of peanut butter. Easy decision.
If I liked peanut butter I'd pick it over caramels too, because peanut butter has macros and a nutritional profile that's more likely to fit my goals. Would you say I've cut it out? Or is what you are doing distinct because you think that there's a negative effect on you from sugar (the cravings)?
Yes, I would say I've cut out caramels. To me the why doesn't matter. Whether I don't eat something because I am allergic (I have no allergies though), another medical condition that prevents me from eating it (I don't), I just don't think it is worth the calories, it tends to cause cravings in me, I actually think something might be unhealthy, or I just think other things taste better ...I would use the phrase " cut out" or say "I don't eat X". To me moderation really does imply a somewhat regular basis. That's always how I've used the word moderation...whether exercise, food, alcohol, work hours, etc.
Let's take it away from food for a minute. Look at exercise. Let's say a person exercises once, then they don't do it again for a month. Then they exercise once or twice in a week, then don't do it again for three months. This goes on for a couple of years. Maybe they exercise 6 or 8 times a year. They have a doctor appointment. The doctor asks if they exercise. What do you say...assuming you aren't going to give a detailed response? Perhaps it's a form with a box that asks how often you exercise.
I would answer no. Because that rare inconsistent exercise is not really enough to provide any tangible health benefit. I think to say they have a "moderate" amount of exercise would just be wrong.0 -
I don't few any food as bad, but I have cut out a lot of pasta since it's not one of my favorite foods.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »Let's take it away from food for a minute. Look at exercise. Let's say a person exercises once, then they don't do it again for a month. Then they exercise once or twice in a week, then don't do it again for three months. This goes on for a couple of years. Maybe they exercise 6 or 8 times a year. They have a doctor appointment. The doctor asks if they exercise. What do you say...assuming you aren't going to give a detailed response? Perhaps it's a form with a box that asks how often you exercise.
I would answer no. Because that rare inconsistent exercise is not really enough to provide any tangible health benefit. I think to say they have a "moderate" amount of exercise would just be wrong.
Only just saw this. Sure I'd say no. And if someone asked me if I eat canned tuna I'd say "no." But if someone asked me if I'd "cut out" canned tuna I'd laugh and say "no, I just never want to eat it." And similarly if someone asked that person if she'd "cut out" exercise I assume she'd say "no, I always mean to exercise, I just never get around to it."
The mistake seems to me in equating cutting something out with not eating it and not cutting it out with eating it. It's much easier to just not eat things that don't fit in your plan for the day or taste that good or for which there are better alternatives than to actively cut them out and swear to never eat them again. The latter seems like something you do only if you fear you will otherwise be eating them. It suggests that you secretly want to, rather than that you've been successful in changing your tastes or selection criteria or whatever.
Again, it just seems like a weird thing for me to claim I've cut out McD's when I never ever want to go there. Yet some seem to think they are extra virtuous for doing that. Shrug.0 -
I cut out all pastries, all junk, white rice, white bread, enriched wheat bread, flour tortillas, anything fizzy, creamy sauces, dairy... come to think of it, my choices are somewhat paleo, but not truly paleo... I have to have whole multi grains, labeled natural or organic, and fresh or dried foods. No more processed stuff for me!0
-
I really can't understand why you have an issue with saying "cut out" or "eliminated" in this situation. It is effectively the same thing as "don't eat" which you used in your tuna example.lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Let's take it away from food for a minute. Look at exercise. Let's say a person exercises once, then they don't do it again for a month. Then they exercise once or twice in a week, then don't do it again for three months. This goes on for a couple of years. Maybe they exercise 6 or 8 times a year. They have a doctor appointment. The doctor asks if they exercise. What do you say...assuming you aren't going to give a detailed response? Perhaps it's a form with a box that asks how often you exercise.
I would answer no. Because that rare inconsistent exercise is not really enough to provide any tangible health benefit. I think to say they have a "moderate" amount of exercise would just be wrong.
Only just saw this. Sure I'd say no. And if someone asked me if I eat canned tuna I'd say "no." But if someone asked me if I'd "cut out" canned tuna I'd laugh and say "no, I just never want to eat it." And similarly if someone asked that person if she'd "cut out" exercise I assume she'd say "no, I always mean to exercise, I just never get around to it."
The mistake seems to me in equating cutting something out with not eating it and not cutting it out with eating it. It's much easier to just not eat things that don't fit in your plan for the day or taste that good or for which there are better alternatives than to actively cut them out and swear to never eat them again. The latter seems like something you do only if you fear you will otherwise be eating them. It suggests that you secretly want to, rather than that you've been successful in changing your tastes or selection criteria or whatever.
Again, it just seems like a weird thing for me to claim I've cut out McD's when I never ever want to go there. Yet some seem to think they are extra virtuous for doing that. Shrug.
There is no mistake. If I say I've cut something out, to me that means that I don't eat it on anything remotely resembling a regular basis. It would be ridiculous to me to say I do eat it, but in moderation, if I eat it three or four times a year...not in the context of a discussion of general diet and health. Given this specific context, cut out, eliminate and don't eat all mean the same thing. There is also no fear, or judgment of somebody else's diet, or feeling of being virtuous...at least for me. This is not an emotional description at all to me...purely practical and descriptive.
It just seems weird to me to be this focused on how somebody chooses to describe their way of eating. I think the mistake is to assume everybody else might have whatever emotional reaction to a word or phrase that you do.
0 -
Pasta. I could eat bowl after bowl of pasta. I got brown rice pasta for my kids to eat. They like it just fine. I think it's gross so that helps me to not eat it. It just easier for me to cut it out of my diet rather than just eat a small portion which has the potential for me to just give in and binge on.0
-
Fast food. Microwave meals. Anything with fructose or high fructose corn syrup. All soda except seltzer. Also almost all bread, pasta, potatoes, rice, chips, crackers, and the like (I think of them as white starches and allow myself 1-2 servings per week only). Have found that I crave completely different things now.0
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »I really can't understand why you have an issue with saying "cut out" or "eliminated" in this situation. It is effectively the same thing as "don't eat" which you used in your tuna example.
It's not at all the same thing. "Cut out" means "did eat but stopped" or "would eat if I didn't have a personal rule against it." I don't eat fast food (as I define it anyway) except maybe once a year on a car trip. But it would be a lie for me to say I've cut it out, since it's been years since I ate it any more regularly and it was just a result of my preferences, not some personal rule I created.
At this point, it has nothing to do with emotional reaction to a word--saying you cut out something you never ate or never think to eat just makes no sense.
Just because you didn't cut something out doesn't mean you eat it (in moderation or otherwise). I don't eat fast food in moderation--I don't really eat it. But that doesn't mean I cut it out. I'm a pretty adventurous eater and I like to try new things, but in reality I don't eat the vast majority of foods in the world. Clearly no one thinks I "cut out" all the foods I don't eat. When you say you cut something out, you mean more--that you otherwise would eat it. (For example, I cut out coffee and meats other than fish for Lent. I cut out added sugar in January. I have not cut out cold cereal, I just never eat it because I do not like it.)
Just read most of the other posts--people are talking about foods they ate until quite recently in most cases or else foods they think they would overeat if they didn't have a personal rule against eating them.0 -
This thread has been going on for sooooo long... so I did not read all the posts..
But cut out nothing! Cut out of the need to cut out things! I still eat, devour, consume the same things... I enjoy it all the more even if it is a bit less of it..
Come to think of it, because it is less of it, I enjoy it more... funny how that works...0 -
Fast Food. I have not been to a McDonald's. a pizza place, etc since Jan. 6 when I started. When I pass these places and am hungry I just remember how I am normally hungry again an hour later and have picked up 500 - 1000 calories I need to burn off. That keeps my little feet moving away.0
-
-
I've cut out a lot of stuff and have lost 12 pounds in 15 days.
Coke
Sugar
Potatoes
White rice
Anything white lol0 -
I just recently added in white rice.0
-
Mayo replaced it with mustard. Ranch dressing has been replaced with low calorie balsamic variations. Coke has been replaced with coke zero, and I actually like it as much as the original now.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I really can't understand why you have an issue with saying "cut out" or "eliminated" in this situation. It is effectively the same thing as "don't eat" which you used in your tuna example.
It's not at all the same thing. "Cut out" means "did eat but stopped" or "would eat if I didn't have a personal rule against it." I don't eat fast food (as I define it anyway) except maybe once a year on a car trip. But it would be a lie for me to say I've cut it out, since it's been years since I ate it any more regularly and it was just a result of my preferences, not some personal rule I created.
At this point, it has nothing to do with emotional reaction to a word--saying you cut out something you never ate or never think to eat just makes no sense.
Just because you didn't cut something out doesn't mean you eat it (in moderation or otherwise). I don't eat fast food in moderation--I don't really eat it. But that doesn't mean I cut it out. I'm a pretty adventurous eater and I like to try new things, but in reality I don't eat the vast majority of foods in the world. Clearly no one thinks I "cut out" all the foods I don't eat. When you say you cut something out, you mean more--that you otherwise would eat it. (For example, I cut out coffee and meats other than fish for Lent. I cut out added sugar in January. I have not cut out cold cereal, I just never eat it because I do not like it.)
Just read most of the other posts--people are talking about foods they ate until quite recently in most cases or else foods they think they would overeat if they didn't have a personal rule against eating them.
It might not make sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to me. Nobody I know, other than on this site, have ever taken issue with the phrase "cut out".
Anyone who sees me that hasn't since before I lost weight, or who saw me earlier in the process, will ask me about the diet...I explain the same things I've explained on this site and not one person has ever said "you shouldn't call it cut out....you should say you very rarely eat it because it doesn't fit your goals/there are better choices/it isn't healthy/it sets off cravings and binges, etc. but you reserve the right to eat it if you really want it but in reality that is extremely rare, like maybe once every few months."
Everything I have cut out I used to eat often...far too often, in fact. Not eating it isn't a "personal rule", it's just a "personal decision" I have made because I believe not eating it is in the best interest of my long term health. "Cut out" is the perfect description to me. If you prefer to say you "don't eat" something that is fine with me. Whatever floats your boat.0 -
I cut out ice cream and gained weight...
I recently put it back in.. so far so good..0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I really can't understand why you have an issue with saying "cut out" or "eliminated" in this situation. It is effectively the same thing as "don't eat" which you used in your tuna example.
It's not at all the same thing. "Cut out" means "did eat but stopped" or "would eat if I didn't have a personal rule against it." I don't eat fast food (as I define it anyway) except maybe once a year on a car trip. But it would be a lie for me to say I've cut it out, since it's been years since I ate it any more regularly and it was just a result of my preferences, not some personal rule I created.
At this point, it has nothing to do with emotional reaction to a word--saying you cut out something you never ate or never think to eat just makes no sense.
Just because you didn't cut something out doesn't mean you eat it (in moderation or otherwise). I don't eat fast food in moderation--I don't really eat it. But that doesn't mean I cut it out. I'm a pretty adventurous eater and I like to try new things, but in reality I don't eat the vast majority of foods in the world. Clearly no one thinks I "cut out" all the foods I don't eat. When you say you cut something out, you mean more--that you otherwise would eat it. (For example, I cut out coffee and meats other than fish for Lent. I cut out added sugar in January. I have not cut out cold cereal, I just never eat it because I do not like it.)
Just read most of the other posts--people are talking about foods they ate until quite recently in most cases or else foods they think they would overeat if they didn't have a personal rule against eating them.
It might not make sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to me. Nobody I know, other than on this site, have ever taken issue with the phrase "cut out".
Anyone who sees me that hasn't since before I lost weight, or who saw me earlier in the process, will ask me about the diet...I explain the same things I've explained on this site and not one person has ever said "you shouldn't call it cut out....you should say you very rarely eat it because it doesn't fit your goals/there are better choices/it isn't healthy/it sets off cravings and binges, etc. but you reserve the right to eat it if you really want it but in reality that is extremely rare, like maybe once every few months."
Everything I have cut out I used to eat often...far too often, in fact. Not eating it isn't a "personal rule", it's just a "personal decision" I have made because I believe not eating it is in the best interest of my long term health. "Cut out" is the perfect description to me. If you prefer to say you "don't eat" something that is fine with me. Whatever floats your boat.
The point remains: You're playing word games. Cut out is simple, clear language that implies to most people with rational minds that you NEVER eat something.
The fact of the matter is that you still do eat those things, just very, very rarely.
There's no need to say you eat in moderation if you don't want to, but it's just plain dishonest to make the claim that you've cut them out when you haven't.
0 -
I didn't really cut anything. I guess the closest is I stopped ordering soda when I eat out. I still have soda for game nights, but I don't drink it any other time. I've switched to unsweet tea with equal. I like the taste, it's very hydrating, and since I had to drop my caffeine intake per my doctor, I brew decaffeinated at home.
I also stopped having snacks in the house itself for the most part. If I want to snack, I make myself some popcorn. But I don't keep chips or cookies or anything like that in the house because I know I will mindlessly munch, and neither my nor my hubby needs them.0 -
diet coke and beer....I haven't cut them out, I just haven't had them in a month. I'm sure i'll have them again, I just haven't craved them enough yet!0
-
I cut sneaking in that second helping of Pop Tarts after lunch and eating the entire pint of ice cream after my thousand 1,000+ calorie meal from whatever restaurant I ate at earlier.
0 -
MoiAussi93, Yes to everything you've posted in this thread. You've expressed everything I feel (and don't feel) perfectly. And my same bewilderment that something that's perfectly normal and reasonable in my day to day life is something contentious here.MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I really can't understand why you have an issue with saying "cut out" or "eliminated" in this situation. It is effectively the same thing as "don't eat" which you used in your tuna example.
It's not at all the same thing. "Cut out" means "did eat but stopped" or "would eat if I didn't have a personal rule against it." I don't eat fast food (as I define it anyway) except maybe once a year on a car trip. But it would be a lie for me to say I've cut it out, since it's been years since I ate it any more regularly and it was just a result of my preferences, not some personal rule I created.
At this point, it has nothing to do with emotional reaction to a word--saying you cut out something you never ate or never think to eat just makes no sense.
Just because you didn't cut something out doesn't mean you eat it (in moderation or otherwise). I don't eat fast food in moderation--I don't really eat it. But that doesn't mean I cut it out. I'm a pretty adventurous eater and I like to try new things, but in reality I don't eat the vast majority of foods in the world. Clearly no one thinks I "cut out" all the foods I don't eat. When you say you cut something out, you mean more--that you otherwise would eat it. (For example, I cut out coffee and meats other than fish for Lent. I cut out added sugar in January. I have not cut out cold cereal, I just never eat it because I do not like it.)
Just read most of the other posts--people are talking about foods they ate until quite recently in most cases or else foods they think they would overeat if they didn't have a personal rule against eating them.
It might not make sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to me. Nobody I know, other than on this site, have ever taken issue with the phrase "cut out".
Anyone who sees me that hasn't since before I lost weight, or who saw me earlier in the process, will ask me about the diet...I explain the same things I've explained on this site and not one person has ever said "you shouldn't call it cut out....you should say you very rarely eat it because it doesn't fit your goals/there are better choices/it isn't healthy/it sets off cravings and binges, etc. but you reserve the right to eat it if you really want it but in reality that is extremely rare, like maybe once every few months."
Everything I have cut out I used to eat often...far too often, in fact. Not eating it isn't a "personal rule", it's just a "personal decision" I have made because I believe not eating it is in the best interest of my long term health. "Cut out" is the perfect description to me. If you prefer to say you "don't eat" something that is fine with me. Whatever floats your boat.
Thanks for your posts; they were an absolute pleasure to read.
0 -
Not word games at all. I am being very honest. To anybody looking for insight or advice, I perfectly describe how I eat 99% of the time. And your habits, and what you do the majority of the time, determine results...not what you do once every few month.mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »I really can't understand why you have an issue with saying "cut out" or "eliminated" in this situation. It is effectively the same thing as "don't eat" which you used in your tuna example.
It's not at all the same thing. "Cut out" means "did eat but stopped" or "would eat if I didn't have a personal rule against it." I don't eat fast food (as I define it anyway) except maybe once a year on a car trip. But it would be a lie for me to say I've cut it out, since it's been years since I ate it any more regularly and it was just a result of my preferences, not some personal rule I created.
At this point, it has nothing to do with emotional reaction to a word--saying you cut out something you never ate or never think to eat just makes no sense.
Just because you didn't cut something out doesn't mean you eat it (in moderation or otherwise). I don't eat fast food in moderation--I don't really eat it. But that doesn't mean I cut it out. I'm a pretty adventurous eater and I like to try new things, but in reality I don't eat the vast majority of foods in the world. Clearly no one thinks I "cut out" all the foods I don't eat. When you say you cut something out, you mean more--that you otherwise would eat it. (For example, I cut out coffee and meats other than fish for Lent. I cut out added sugar in January. I have not cut out cold cereal, I just never eat it because I do not like it.)
Just read most of the other posts--people are talking about foods they ate until quite recently in most cases or else foods they think they would overeat if they didn't have a personal rule against eating them.
It might not make sense to you, but it makes perfect sense to me. Nobody I know, other than on this site, have ever taken issue with the phrase "cut out".
Anyone who sees me that hasn't since before I lost weight, or who saw me earlier in the process, will ask me about the diet...I explain the same things I've explained on this site and not one person has ever said "you shouldn't call it cut out....you should say you very rarely eat it because it doesn't fit your goals/there are better choices/it isn't healthy/it sets off cravings and binges, etc. but you reserve the right to eat it if you really want it but in reality that is extremely rare, like maybe once every few months."
Everything I have cut out I used to eat often...far too often, in fact. Not eating it isn't a "personal rule", it's just a "personal decision" I have made because I believe not eating it is in the best interest of my long term health. "Cut out" is the perfect description to me. If you prefer to say you "don't eat" something that is fine with me. Whatever floats your boat.
The point remains: You're playing word games. Cut out is simple, clear language that implies to most people with rational minds that you NEVER eat something.
The fact of the matter is that you still do eat those things, just very, very rarely.
There's no need to say you eat in moderation if you don't want to, but it's just plain dishonest to make the claim that you've cut them out when you haven't.
To me, the people playing word games are the ones who say they eat sweets or "junk food"...however they define that...in moderation and then, when probed, admit they only have it every month or two. So in effect, they do exactly what I do!!!! Any rational person will tell you that moderation implies some kind of regular basis.
Just like a person who exercises five times a year is being dishonest if he claims he exercises in moderation, a person who eats sweets five times a year is being dishonest if they claim to eat sweets in moderation.
To make it even worse, they run around telling people who are obviously struggling and looking for advice that they don't need to stop eating anything they like. They are losing and still eat all the stuff they used to...as long as it fits their calories. They usually neglect to mention that that only happens once or twice a quarter. LOL!!!
0 -
tl;dr
I actually ADDED stuff to my diet and haven't cut anything out! I've added more cheese, donuts, diet soda, wine, cupcakes, cookies, bread, avocado and pasta. I think I was avoiding things I like because I wasn't sure on the calories and how much over on calories it would put me, but now that I'm tracking I know how to fit these things in moderation to my normal diet and I still lose on a weekly basis.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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