The truth about "I still eat the foods I love"
Options
Replies
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol
Yeah...giving up 98% doesn't mean anything, but giving up 2% means everything.
MFP logic....
For Act 2 the argument will probably be that even if you don't eat them at all it's not "giving up" because there are still some within driving distance that you *could* eat....
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol
...would be the accurate definition of "giving up" and "restricting"...
sure. Not my point, but sure.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol
Yeah...giving up 98% doesn't mean anything, but giving up 2% means everything.
MFP logic....
BINGO0 -
Hmm, none of those really fits a "Lent" style "giving up" though does it.If you're restricting calories, you're giving up foods you love. There is no other way.
It can be dressed up as "eat less of them" or "eat them in moderation" but it's all just various forms of restriction that require sacrifice and discipline.
Give up:
to cease doing or attempting something especially as an admission of defeat
to desist from : abandon
and if we take Abandon to be synonymous with give up, then:
: to leave and never return to (something)
Moderation:
a : tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension
avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits <a moderate drinker>
Give up thus entails not consuming something at all, period. Moderation entails consuming that item in smaller amounts. Neither are the same thing. The latter requires no sacrifice on my part while the former does.
So no, in my caloric deficit I've not had to abandon or give up any particular food item, why would it be assumed that this is required? Moderation of all food items? Yes, but again that is not at all giving them up.
0 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »If a small serving of ice cream isn't "worth it," then you need to evaluate why you'd consider a "food you love."
Honestly, if you need a full pint to feel like you got your ice cream on, you might be either buying crappy ice cream or eating too fast. Or maybe you just don't like ice cream as much as you think you do. Everyone needs to examine his or her own TRUE preferences and loves. Shoving food in your face without thinking about it isn't a love, it's a bad habit. When you break down tasty treats into proper portion sizes, it doesn't take that much to fit them into even a fairly low calorie limit. (I was eating premium gelato every night when I was at 1300, and I didn't have to starve myself all day to do it.) And, if you take the time to enjoy your treats, they will satisfy you.
^^This. Seriously.
And considering that, in my experience, most ice cream is ~160 calories per serving, its really not that hard to fit it in.
160 calories worth of ice cream is just sad...
May be sad for you, but not for everyone. I was just discussing the same exact things about habits and our perception. I grew up eating just one serving, and often even half a serving (kid's popsicle size). It feels plenty much to me because that's the amount I've always eaten even when I weighed more than 300 pounds, and because everyone I ever knew ate 1/2-1 serving and more seemed (and still seems) unnecessary.
I think that's the point really. Everyone should find an approach that works for them and not worry about what other people are doing. 160 calories of ice cream is sad to me, and I'd rather eat the whole pint. I just find a way to eat the whole pint, even if that means I only eat 4 pints a year - to me that's moderation (moderating frequency).
I find it fascinating that even amongst people who generally agree, there's still an undercurrent of 'you're not doing it right' (General observation - not directed at you).
That begs the question, why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? Someone talks about looking forward to their cheat meal, the post telling them they should stop putting toxins in their body or that calling it a "cheat" is setting up for failure is not helping them in any way. Someone talks about how they constantly overeat pasta and have to give them up for a while, the post telling them "I eat it all the time" or if they don't eat it they're guaranteed to binge is not helping them in any way.
The answer to this is easy and pretty interesting. It's the reason the "share" and "like" buttons are popular. It's the same reason why fad diets (or any product, really) take off through word of mouth and anecdotes. Why some people more than others tend to be drawn into a cult mentality. The answer is: because we're human, we're social, and we're self-centered. The combination of all 3 encourages sharing. I don't want to make this long, it's just one of the topics that fascinate me.
Example: Person A talks about looking forward to cheat meal. (sharing out of sense of belonging)
Person B says: It's toxins! (sharing to educate - feeling they have more knowledge in the matter others may not have)
Person C says: You should not call it cheating! (sharing to help prevent failure - feeling they have gone through the same path and they are doing person A a social favor)
Person D says: I'm looking forward to my cheat meal too! (sharing for conformity and, again, sense of belonging)
Person E says: I don't do cheat meals. (sharing to re-affirm self and get a better idea of who they are)
Person F says: I've always wondered about cheat meals, I read this and that. (sharing because it's a topic or a cause they are interested in or feel strongly about)
...etc
Where the conflicts arise is when any of these people speak like there is only one version of "right" and it is theirs.
0 -
OMG, this again! Some people are moderators, some are abstainers. Be honest with yourself on where you stand on the spectrum and adjust your behavior accordingly.0
-
bennettinfinity wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »If a small serving of ice cream isn't "worth it," then you need to evaluate why you'd consider a "food you love."
Honestly, if you need a full pint to feel like you got your ice cream on, you might be either buying crappy ice cream or eating too fast. Or maybe you just don't like ice cream as much as you think you do. Everyone needs to examine his or her own TRUE preferences and loves. Shoving food in your face without thinking about it isn't a love, it's a bad habit. When you break down tasty treats into proper portion sizes, it doesn't take that much to fit them into even a fairly low calorie limit. (I was eating premium gelato every night when I was at 1300, and I didn't have to starve myself all day to do it.) And, if you take the time to enjoy your treats, they will satisfy you.
^^This. Seriously.
And considering that, in my experience, most ice cream is ~160 calories per serving, its really not that hard to fit it in.
160 calories worth of ice cream is just sad...
May be sad for you, but not for everyone. I was just discussing the same exact things about habits and our perception. I grew up eating just one serving, and often even half a serving (kid's popsicle size). It feels plenty much to me because that's the amount I've always eaten even when I weighed more than 300 pounds, and because everyone I ever knew ate 1/2-1 serving and more seemed (and still seems) unnecessary.
I think that's the point really. Everyone should find an approach that works for them and not worry about what other people are doing. 160 calories of ice cream is sad to me, and I'd rather eat the whole pint. I just find a way to eat the whole pint, even if that means I only eat 4 pints a year - to me that's moderation (moderating frequency).
I find it fascinating that even amongst people who generally agree, there's still an undercurrent of 'you're not doing it right' (General observation - not directed at you).
That begs the question, why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? Someone talks about looking forward to their cheat meal, the post telling them they should stop putting toxins in their body or that calling it a "cheat" is setting up for failure is not helping them in any way. Someone talks about how they constantly overeat pasta and have to give them up for a while, the post telling them "I eat it all the time" or if they don't eat it they're guaranteed to binge is not helping them in any way.
why does that bother you so much? It is a public internet forum and people are going to comment on whatever they feel like...
and if it truly does both you just ignore it and don't reply.
Asking a question != being bothered. You seem to project that on to me any time I don't agree lockstep with whatever you've said. Seems more like your issue than mine.
way to move the goalposts...
I am not projecting anything on you. You said "why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? < that statement has absolutely nothing to do about me or you agreeing with me.
My question is - why does it bother you so much if people post in a thread and have an opposite statement to make? It is a public forum....and if it bothers you so much just ignore it...
Or do you just think that all OPs should be given 100% validation???
It doesn't. Why does someone asking why bother you so much?
I am not the one that posed the question. You did, so obviously you take issue with it. I want to know why it is a big enough deal that you are complaining about it?
Or are you saying that is now not what you are doing?
I'm asking a question. No complaint, no being bothered, just part of the conversation. Other people seemed to have no problem offering their opinion. If it bothers you so much, don't read it.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
yea, but that is not giving up skittles. That is just reducing your intake.
if you give them up that means that you don't eat them anymore.
And the precipice between 20 and 0. lol
Yeah...giving up 98% doesn't mean anything, but giving up 2% means everything.
MFP logic....
BINGO
Lol - so true.0 -
Yes, but you haven't given up Skittles completely, which is what saying you've given something up implies.
I see you're here to play word games.
Why not just stick to the one about how we all moderate EVERYTHING?
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »If a small serving of ice cream isn't "worth it," then you need to evaluate why you'd consider a "food you love."
Honestly, if you need a full pint to feel like you got your ice cream on, you might be either buying crappy ice cream or eating too fast. Or maybe you just don't like ice cream as much as you think you do. Everyone needs to examine his or her own TRUE preferences and loves. Shoving food in your face without thinking about it isn't a love, it's a bad habit. When you break down tasty treats into proper portion sizes, it doesn't take that much to fit them into even a fairly low calorie limit. (I was eating premium gelato every night when I was at 1300, and I didn't have to starve myself all day to do it.) And, if you take the time to enjoy your treats, they will satisfy you.
^^This. Seriously.
And considering that, in my experience, most ice cream is ~160 calories per serving, its really not that hard to fit it in.
160 calories worth of ice cream is just sad...
May be sad for you, but not for everyone. I was just discussing the same exact things about habits and our perception. I grew up eating just one serving, and often even half a serving (kid's popsicle size). It feels plenty much to me because that's the amount I've always eaten even when I weighed more than 300 pounds, and because everyone I ever knew ate 1/2-1 serving and more seemed (and still seems) unnecessary.
I think that's the point really. Everyone should find an approach that works for them and not worry about what other people are doing. 160 calories of ice cream is sad to me, and I'd rather eat the whole pint. I just find a way to eat the whole pint, even if that means I only eat 4 pints a year - to me that's moderation (moderating frequency).
I find it fascinating that even amongst people who generally agree, there's still an undercurrent of 'you're not doing it right' (General observation - not directed at you).
That begs the question, why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? Someone talks about looking forward to their cheat meal, the post telling them they should stop putting toxins in their body or that calling it a "cheat" is setting up for failure is not helping them in any way. Someone talks about how they constantly overeat pasta and have to give them up for a while, the post telling them "I eat it all the time" or if they don't eat it they're guaranteed to binge is not helping them in any way.
The answer to this is easy and pretty interesting. It's the reason the "share" and "like" buttons are popular. It's the same reason why fad diets (or any product, really) take off through word of mouth and anecdotes. Why some people more than others tend to be drawn into a cult mentality. The answer is: because we're human, we're social, and we're self-centered. The combination of all 3 encourages sharing. I don't want to make this long, it's just one of the topics that fascinate me.
Example: Person A talks about looking forward to cheat meal. (sharing out of sense of belonging)
Person B says: It's toxins! (sharing to educate - feeling they have more knowledge in the matter others may not have)
Person C says: You should not call it cheating! (sharing to help prevent failure - feeling they have gone through the same path and they are doing person A a social favor)
Person D says: I'm looking forward to my cheat meal too! (sharing for conformity and, again, sense of belonging)
Person E says: I don't do cheat meals. (sharing to re-affirm self and get a better idea of who they are)
Person F says: I've always wondered about cheat meals, I read this and that. (sharing because it's a topic or a cause they are interested in or feel strongly about)
...etc
Where the conflicts arise is when any of these people speak like there is only one version of "right" and it is theirs.
Same here. It seems people fall into two categories, those who live and let live, and those who take everyone else's behavior or words personally. Seems like all of these threads boil down to people saying the same thing, and arguing because they don't agree on what the definition of "is" is.0 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »If a small serving of ice cream isn't "worth it," then you need to evaluate why you'd consider a "food you love."
Honestly, if you need a full pint to feel like you got your ice cream on, you might be either buying crappy ice cream or eating too fast. Or maybe you just don't like ice cream as much as you think you do. Everyone needs to examine his or her own TRUE preferences and loves. Shoving food in your face without thinking about it isn't a love, it's a bad habit. When you break down tasty treats into proper portion sizes, it doesn't take that much to fit them into even a fairly low calorie limit. (I was eating premium gelato every night when I was at 1300, and I didn't have to starve myself all day to do it.) And, if you take the time to enjoy your treats, they will satisfy you.
^^This. Seriously.
And considering that, in my experience, most ice cream is ~160 calories per serving, its really not that hard to fit it in.
160 calories worth of ice cream is just sad...
May be sad for you, but not for everyone. I was just discussing the same exact things about habits and our perception. I grew up eating just one serving, and often even half a serving (kid's popsicle size). It feels plenty much to me because that's the amount I've always eaten even when I weighed more than 300 pounds, and because everyone I ever knew ate 1/2-1 serving and more seemed (and still seems) unnecessary.
I think that's the point really. Everyone should find an approach that works for them and not worry about what other people are doing. 160 calories of ice cream is sad to me, and I'd rather eat the whole pint. I just find a way to eat the whole pint, even if that means I only eat 4 pints a year - to me that's moderation (moderating frequency).
I find it fascinating that even amongst people who generally agree, there's still an undercurrent of 'you're not doing it right' (General observation - not directed at you).
That begs the question, why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? Someone talks about looking forward to their cheat meal, the post telling them they should stop putting toxins in their body or that calling it a "cheat" is setting up for failure is not helping them in any way. Someone talks about how they constantly overeat pasta and have to give them up for a while, the post telling them "I eat it all the time" or if they don't eat it they're guaranteed to binge is not helping them in any way.
why does that bother you so much? It is a public internet forum and people are going to comment on whatever they feel like...
and if it truly does both you just ignore it and don't reply.
Asking a question != being bothered. You seem to project that on to me any time I don't agree lockstep with whatever you've said. Seems more like your issue than mine.
way to move the goalposts...
I am not projecting anything on you. You said "why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? < that statement has absolutely nothing to do about me or you agreeing with me.
My question is - why does it bother you so much if people post in a thread and have an opposite statement to make? It is a public forum....and if it bothers you so much just ignore it...
Or do you just think that all OPs should be given 100% validation???
It doesn't. Why does someone asking why bother you so much?
I am not the one that posed the question. You did, so obviously you take issue with it. I want to know why it is a big enough deal that you are complaining about it?
Or are you saying that is now not what you are doing?
I'm asking a question. No complaint, no being bothered, just part of the conversation. Other people seemed to have no problem offering their opinion. If it bothers you so much, don't read it.
so I see you are in full deflection mode now....
got ya....0 -
What does eating 0 skittles instead 20 skittles (rather than the 1000 you want) imply?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yes, but you haven't given up Skittles completely, which is what saying you've given something up implies.
I see you're here to play word games.
Why not just stick to the one about how we all moderate EVERYTHING?
and I'm laughing that we're talking about skittles!
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What does eating 0 skittles instead 20 skittles (rather than the 1000 you want) imply?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yes, but you haven't given up Skittles completely, which is what saying you've given something up implies.
I see you're here to play word games.
Why not just stick to the one about how we all moderate EVERYTHING?
and I'm laughing that we're talking about skittles!
You can't eat 0 of anything.
0 -
KombuchaCat wrote: »OMG, this again! Some people are moderators, some are abstainers. Be honest with yourself on where you stand on the spectrum and adjust your behavior accordingly.
Well, seeing how the OP's question was about moderation techniques, I don't think abstaining and gluttony are really on topic.
And this is from someone with ADD. SQUIRREL!0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »If a small serving of ice cream isn't "worth it," then you need to evaluate why you'd consider a "food you love."
Honestly, if you need a full pint to feel like you got your ice cream on, you might be either buying crappy ice cream or eating too fast. Or maybe you just don't like ice cream as much as you think you do. Everyone needs to examine his or her own TRUE preferences and loves. Shoving food in your face without thinking about it isn't a love, it's a bad habit. When you break down tasty treats into proper portion sizes, it doesn't take that much to fit them into even a fairly low calorie limit. (I was eating premium gelato every night when I was at 1300, and I didn't have to starve myself all day to do it.) And, if you take the time to enjoy your treats, they will satisfy you.
^^This. Seriously.
And considering that, in my experience, most ice cream is ~160 calories per serving, its really not that hard to fit it in.
160 calories worth of ice cream is just sad...
May be sad for you, but not for everyone. I was just discussing the same exact things about habits and our perception. I grew up eating just one serving, and often even half a serving (kid's popsicle size). It feels plenty much to me because that's the amount I've always eaten even when I weighed more than 300 pounds, and because everyone I ever knew ate 1/2-1 serving and more seemed (and still seems) unnecessary.
I think that's the point really. Everyone should find an approach that works for them and not worry about what other people are doing. 160 calories of ice cream is sad to me, and I'd rather eat the whole pint. I just find a way to eat the whole pint, even if that means I only eat 4 pints a year - to me that's moderation (moderating frequency).
I find it fascinating that even amongst people who generally agree, there's still an undercurrent of 'you're not doing it right' (General observation - not directed at you).
That begs the question, why do people feel compelled to share any time they see someone who does the opposite of what works for them? Someone talks about looking forward to their cheat meal, the post telling them they should stop putting toxins in their body or that calling it a "cheat" is setting up for failure is not helping them in any way. Someone talks about how they constantly overeat pasta and have to give them up for a while, the post telling them "I eat it all the time" or if they don't eat it they're guaranteed to binge is not helping them in any way.
The answer to this is easy and pretty interesting. It's the reason the "share" and "like" buttons are popular. It's the same reason why fad diets (or any product, really) take off through word of mouth and anecdotes. Why some people more than others tend to be drawn into a cult mentality. The answer is: because we're human, we're social, and we're self-centered. The combination of all 3 encourages sharing. I don't want to make this long, it's just one of the topics that fascinate me.
Example: Person A talks about looking forward to cheat meal. (sharing out of sense of belonging)
Person B says: It's toxins! (sharing to educate - feeling they have more knowledge in the matter others may not have)
Person C says: You should not call it cheating! (sharing to help prevent failure - feeling they have gone through the same path and they are doing person A a social favor)
Person D says: I'm looking forward to my cheat meal too! (sharing for conformity and, again, sense of belonging)
Person E says: I don't do cheat meals. (sharing to re-affirm self and get a better idea of who they are)
Person F says: I've always wondered about cheat meals, I read this and that. (sharing because it's a topic or a cause they are interested in or feel strongly about)
...etc
Where the conflicts arise is when any of these people speak like there is only one version of "right" and it is theirs.
Same here. It seems people fall into two categories, those who live and let live, and those who take everyone else's behavior or words personally. Seems like all of these threads boil down to people saying the same thing, and arguing because they don't agree on what the definition of "is" is.
If it bothers you, don't participate.
A lot of people enjoy a good debate on semantics. It's entertaining. If it doesn't entertain you, then just click on the red x on the top of the screen and move along. Problem solved.0 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What does eating 0 skittles instead 20 skittles (rather than the 1000 you want) imply?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yes, but you haven't given up Skittles completely, which is what saying you've given something up implies.
I see you're here to play word games.
Why not just stick to the one about how we all moderate EVERYTHING?
and I'm laughing that we're talking about skittles!
You can't eat 0 of anything.
ok let's play mess with gricean pragmatics! 0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What does eating 0 skittles instead 20 skittles (rather than the 1000 you want) imply?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yes, but you haven't given up Skittles completely, which is what saying you've given something up implies.
I see you're here to play word games.
Why not just stick to the one about how we all moderate EVERYTHING?
and I'm laughing that we're talking about skittles!
You can't eat 0 of anything.
So if I ask my child how many cookies they ate and they say zero, should I punish them for lying?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What does eating 0 skittles instead 20 skittles (rather than the 1000 you want) imply?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yes, but you haven't given up Skittles completely, which is what saying you've given something up implies.
I see you're here to play word games.
Why not just stick to the one about how we all moderate EVERYTHING?
and I'm laughing that we're talking about skittles!
You can't eat 0 of anything. ok let's play mess with gricean pragmatics!
Hey, you left yourself open for that one
Zero consumption of skittles means just that. Zero consumption. You gave them up.
Oh, anything that anyone ever gives up has the potential to be reintroduced in their diet, but eating 20 skittles is not zero consumption.
20>0
0 -
Indeed, there are 20 more skittles. And how is it magically "better" as preached here?mamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
What does eating 0 skittles instead 20 skittles (rather than the 1000 you want) imply?mamapeach910 wrote: »
Yes, but you haven't given up Skittles completely, which is what saying you've given something up implies.
I see you're here to play word games.
Why not just stick to the one about how we all moderate EVERYTHING?
and I'm laughing that we're talking about skittles!
You can't eat 0 of anything. ok let's play mess with gricean pragmatics!
Hey, you left yourself open for that one
Zero consumption of skittles means just that. Zero consumption. You gave them up.
Oh, anything that anyone ever gives up has the potential to be reintroduced in their diet, but eating 20 skittles is not zero consumption.
20>0
And does 20 leave no room for change? Do people who eat 20, never add? How is adding different from re-introducing?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions