what is a food you have cut from your diet with some success?
Replies
-
I cut out cheese, condiments, and pasta.0
-
Soda/sugary drinks.0
-
I bought some flavored, gourmet vinegars and use them on their own instead of a salad dressing. They are delicious and not too vinegar-y tasting and cut down on HUNDREDS of oily calories per day.0
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
Agreed!!!
I have cut out added sugars, pasta, rice, potatoes, bread and dairy.
0 -
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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
Your posts come across the same "smugly asserting" way; just the opposite side of the same coin. Your way is the right way and everyone else is "weird", "silly", "illogical" or any of the other little digs that pepper your posts. Since you put so much stock into words and their meaning I'm sure you realize this.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with an approach (or word choice!) -- no matter how silly or incomprehensible you deem it to be -- when the result is a reasonably nutritious diet and better health.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
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.
+1
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
Your posts come across the same "smugly asserting" way; just the opposite side of the same coin. Your way is the right way and everyone else is "weird", "silly", "illogical" or any of the other little digs that pepper your posts. Since you put so much stock into words and their meaning I'm sure you realize this.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with an approach (or word choice!) -- no matter how silly or incomprehensible you deem it to be -- when the result is a reasonably nutritious diet and better health.
So much this.0 -
Rice, used to binge on that stuff and crave it bad. Banned it from the house and even when family bring some I don't want any.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
This is from one of MoiAussi's posts-
"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."
I don't know why you keep seeing judgement in someone saying what they eat. I haven't cut out anything myself, but it doesn't bother me at all if someone has, nor do I take it personally when someone thinks anything about anything I eat. It's not a question of morality.0 -
I've stopped eating chips.0
-
-
For me it was premium ice cream. I love ice cream, but have virtually cut it from my diet.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
It is weird. It's all "I cut out.... except for when".
At this point it's not even worth bothering any more, if someone wants to go around telling people they never do something when they do in fact still do it, that's their life.
It's like all the low carbers or paleo people or clean eaters who "cheat" but preach to the high heavens about the virtues of their "lifestyle".
If it helps you sleep at night, dear. I'm over the semantics game, unless they come into a thread with a confused new dieter and try to proselytize. Gloves off then.
0 -
Bread. If I don't die by natural causes, suspect the bread, hahaha
Seriously. Once I get a bite of that goodness, I WILL stuff myself.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
Your posts come across the same "smugly asserting" way; just the opposite side of the same coin. Your way is the right way and everyone else is "weird", "silly", "illogical" or any of the other little digs that pepper your posts. Since you put so much stock into words and their meaning I'm sure you realize this.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with an approach (or word choice!) -- no matter how silly or incomprehensible you deem it to be -- when the result is a reasonably nutritious diet and better health.
I believe the point that she is making is that people cut them out because they view them as "bad" and that eating those foods is what lead to their weight gain. So by cutting out the junk, crap, insert whatever word here, their food choice is somehow better than someone that does not.
If you don't believe it just hunt around the threads and read all the posts about people saying "well, I don't eat "junk" anymore, or I don't have a "garbage" diet any more; the implication being that any eating said "junk" has a "garbage" diet. I believe that is what she is referring to with the "virtue" comment.
I don't see how she is being smug when she specifically sites herself as becoming fat, not because of individual food choice, but because of overeating on all foods.
then again, Lemur does not need me to defend her.
I just find it funny that you are complaining about judging, and then judge...0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
Your posts come across the same "smugly asserting" way; just the opposite side of the same coin. Your way is the right way and everyone else is "weird", "silly", "illogical" or any of the other little digs that pepper your posts. Since you put so much stock into words and their meaning I'm sure you realize this.
Except that I've said a million times that I don't think there's anything wrong with cutting out foods. I just don't get why people are acting like it's some holy grail to strive for or calling things "cutting out" when they aren't.
0 -
I think it's weird that you seem to think that because I say I've cut out certain foods, I think I am virtuous or that I am focused on what I "can't" (your word, not mine) eat instead of on eating well. Actually, I CAN eat it, I just don't...because to eat those things would not be eating well for my needs.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
I have never claimed eating the way I do makes me virtuous. The only people I ever see using words like virtue in the context of diet are the people on this site who get upset when somebody else says they have cut something out. Weird.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think it's weird that you seem to think that because I say I've cut out certain foods, I think I am virtuous or that I am focused on what I "can't" (your word, not mine) eat instead of on eating well. Actually, I CAN eat it, I just don't...because to eat those things would not be eating well for my needs.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
I have never claimed eating the way I do makes me virtuous. The only people I ever see using words like virtue in the context of diet are the people on this site who get upset when somebody else says they have cut something out. Weird.
Yeah, this is something I don't get either. Say you've cut something from your diet and suddenly you are a moron that thinks the food you choose not eat will magically make you fat if you do eat it. Personal choice is not a valid reason to cut food apparently.0 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
It is weird. It's all "I cut out.... except for when".
At this point it's not even worth bothering any more, if someone wants to go around telling people they never do something when they do in fact still do it, that's their life.
It's like all the low carbers or paleo people or clean eaters who "cheat" but preach to the high heavens about the virtues of their "lifestyle".
If it helps you sleep at night, dear. I'm over the semantics game, unless they come into a thread with a confused new dieter and try to proselytize. Gloves off then.
And another case of someone talking about "virtue"!!! You are really reading way too much into my words. I have never said anything like that. Your interpretation is seriously off. I believe that has more to do with you than it does with anything I have written.
I eat the way I do because I believe it will keep me at a healthy weight and be supportive of long term good health (and because I actually do enjoy the foods I eat)...not because I think it makes me a better human being. You need to separate diet from character...they are two completely different things.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
It is weird. It's all "I cut out.... except for when".
At this point it's not even worth bothering any more, if someone wants to go around telling people they never do something when they do in fact still do it, that's their life.
It's like all the low carbers or paleo people or clean eaters who "cheat" but preach to the high heavens about the virtues of their "lifestyle".
If it helps you sleep at night, dear. I'm over the semantics game, unless they come into a thread with a confused new dieter and try to proselytize. Gloves off then.
And another case of someone talking about "virtue"!!! You are really reading way too much into my words. I have never said anything like that. Your interpretation is seriously off. I believe that has more to do with you than it does with anything I have written.
I eat the way I do because I believe it will keep me at a healthy weight and be supportive of long term good health (and because I actually do enjoy the foods I eat)...not because I think it makes me a better human being. You need to separate diet from character...they are two completely different things.
I'm not talking about the way you eat. I think everyone should find a way of eating that works best for them, and you've found yours. That's terrific, and I am glad that you have.
I'm talking about the way you TALK about the way you eat.
0 -
Over eaters Anonymous uses the idea or green, yellow, and red light foods. Red light foods are those you avoid. I'm not in OA but I think it insensitive to see people preach that it is a bad idea to restrict one's food choices. I'm sure no one would suggest a recovering alcoholic doesn't have to avoid alcohol.
I know this is not an OA site or thread, but understand there are different paths to get to the same place,0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
It is weird. It's all "I cut out.... except for when".
At this point it's not even worth bothering any more, if someone wants to go around telling people they never do something when they do in fact still do it, that's their life.
It's like all the low carbers or paleo people or clean eaters who "cheat" but preach to the high heavens about the virtues of their "lifestyle".
If it helps you sleep at night, dear. I'm over the semantics game, unless they come into a thread with a confused new dieter and try to proselytize. Gloves off then.
And another case of someone talking about "virtue"!!! You are really reading way too much into my words. I have never said anything like that. Your interpretation is seriously off. I believe that has more to do with you than it does with anything I have written.
I eat the way I do because I believe it will keep me at a healthy weight and be supportive of long term good health (and because I actually do enjoy the foods I eat)...not because I think it makes me a better human being. You need to separate diet from character...they are two completely different things.
I'm not talking about the way you eat. I think everyone should find a way of eating that works best for them, and you've found yours. That's terrific, and I am glad that you have.
I'm talking about the way you TALK about the way you eat.
Well, I'm not you so it is a little unreasonable to expect me to talk the way that you would. I don't use profanity, I haven't engaged in name calling, and I have NEVER said my eating style is a virtue. I eat in a way that I find healthy. If you, or anybody else, disagrees on what is healthy, that is fine. I don't mind. Different people can come to different conclusions when looking at the same information depending on how they weigh various factors.
Eat whatever you like. Describe it however you like. But if the fact that my opinion differs from yours offends you, there is nothing I can do about that. I have just as much right to express my opinion as you do, and I will continue to do so...using whichever polite words I choose.0 -
guinevere96 wrote: »
SO versatile!
cauliflower cookies, cauliflower pizza crust, cauliflower martinis!
0 -
cut: sugar, grains, legumes, some dairy (milk in particular). most processed foods.
added (or increased): fermented foods, coconut oil, grass fed ghee, bone broth, wild seafood, sea vegetables, organ meats, leafy greens.0 -
booze0
-
tmdalton849 wrote: »cut: sugar, grains, legumes, some dairy (milk in particular). most processed foods.
added (or increased): fermented foods, coconut oil, grass fed ghee, bone broth, wild seafood, sea vegetables, organ meats, leafy greens.
oh, and working on caffeine now.0 -
I cut soda out of my REGULAR diet years ago. I did have some, I think back in October, the family was having rum and coke and I had some then. Before that though, the last time I'd had soda was 3 years ago at my going away party.
There's a lot of hair-splitting going on in this thread. When I cut soda out of my life, it was back when I hit goal a decade ago. I did it for the health of my teeth and kidneys, not because I felt it would help too much with weight loss.
Cutting something out of your day to day diet but still having it a couple times a year counts to me.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Yup, this.
It's also just weird that people seem to think that cutting out a huge list of foods is some kind of sign of virtue. To me it suggests that they are putting an awful lot of focus on what they can't eat (including so often perfectly nutritious foods like potatoes) and not enough on simply eating well.
I didn't get fat because I ate pasta or potatoes or ribs or ice cream (and I certainly didn't get fat from eating fast food or storebought candy, since I never did). I got fat because I ate those foods in overly large quantities. If there's one main culprit in my weight gain besides inactivity, it was being overly indulgent at restaurants and doing Indian take out too often instead of cooking for myself. I'd be sad if I had to give up restaurants (including Indian restaurants), so luckily you can get the same effect just by exercising some restraint. But I get the feeling from some of the posts that I'd be somehow more virtuous if I were smugly asserting that I "cut out" Indian food," since I probably only go out for Indian once every couple of months. Weird.
It is weird. It's all "I cut out.... except for when".
At this point it's not even worth bothering any more, if someone wants to go around telling people they never do something when they do in fact still do it, that's their life.
It's like all the low carbers or paleo people or clean eaters who "cheat" but preach to the high heavens about the virtues of their "lifestyle".
If it helps you sleep at night, dear. I'm over the semantics game, unless they come into a thread with a confused new dieter and try to proselytize. Gloves off then.
And another case of someone talking about "virtue"!!! You are really reading way too much into my words. I have never said anything like that. Your interpretation is seriously off. I believe that has more to do with you than it does with anything I have written.
I eat the way I do because I believe it will keep me at a healthy weight and be supportive of long term good health (and because I actually do enjoy the foods I eat)...not because I think it makes me a better human being. You need to separate diet from character...they are two completely different things.
I'm not talking about the way you eat. I think everyone should find a way of eating that works best for them, and you've found yours. That's terrific, and I am glad that you have.
I'm talking about the way you TALK about the way you eat.
Well, I'm not you so it is a little unreasonable to expect me to talk the way that you would. I don't use profanity, I haven't engaged in name calling, and I have NEVER said my eating style is a virtue. I eat in a way that I find healthy. If you, or anybody else, disagrees on what is healthy, that is fine. I don't mind. Different people can come to different conclusions when looking at the same information depending on how they weigh various factors.
Eat whatever you like. Describe it however you like. But if the fact that my opinion differs from yours offends you, there is nothing I can do about that. I have just as much right to express my opinion as you do, and I will continue to do so...using whichever polite words I choose.
Completely missed my point. Nothing new.
I do not give a flying fig what you eat. I have no issue with your food choices.
Your word choice, that's all I've ever been talking about. It's dodgy and imprecise. I have been clear that all I've been talking about is your choice of words. You keep changing the subject.
I am, however, finished discussing your odd need to say you don't eat stuff when you still do. Whatever floats your boat.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K 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
- 427 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