Do you view your old eating habits as a personal failing?
Replies
-
pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
Everyone has a lack of self-discipline, etc., about some things, first of all.
I see it as a matter of priorities. That I currently prioritize my weight and fitness and all that is great, and pleasurable for me, but if it wasn't on balance worth it to me, why would that make me a person with less character than the alternative.
I spend a lot of time reading good books, because that's something I prioritize (although I've done it less since getting obsessed with fitness). If someone else doesn't find the enjoyment I do in this and prefers to spend the same time doing something else (including, say, watching reality TV), does that make that person someone with less character? Or just someone with different interests and priorities?
There are all kinds of good reasons (and not so good) people may not bother to focus on their weight, but trying to make it into some kind of moral issue seems wrong to me. It's reasonably hard to even sort out how much is conscious and how much isn't.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
I'd view it more as a societal failure. At any other point in history this would not have happened. I understand there's a lot of shame, guilt and just emotional baggage in general associated with being overweight but when 30% of the worlds population is I think it moves beyond the individual. Take charge and responsibility to change your circumstances but for goodness sakes be kind to yourself -- you don't deserve contempt and derision.
I don't agree with this either. (Well, no, I agree with the last two sentences, but not the idea that it's a "societal failure.")
The reason overweight hasn't been an issue in the past is that the conditions which permit it (easy and cheap access to food, food in unprecedented variety, the mass population in jobs which are reasonably sedentary, the existence of the automobile and lots of machines that make household far less burdensome than it used to be) didn't exist in the past. And most of those changes are good. Some are, arguably, less good--I think the fact that we've lost (in the US first, elsewhere is catching up) community/cultural ideas about eating and mealtime and see it as another expression of simple individual pleasure and choice, to go on in an unlimited way, is probably not great, but people generally like these kinds of changes on the whole.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
I'd view it more as a societal failure. At any other point in history this would not have happened. I understand there's a lot of shame, guilt and just emotional baggage in general associated with being overweight but when 30% of the worlds population is I think it moves beyond the individual. Take charge and responsibility to change your circumstances but for goodness sakes be kind to yourself -- you don't deserve contempt and derision.
I don't agree with this either. (Well, no, I agree with the last two sentences, but not the idea that it's a "societal failure.")
The reason overweight hasn't been an issue in the past is that the conditions which permit it (easy and cheap access to food, food in unprecedented variety, the mass population in jobs which are reasonably sedentary, the existence of the automobile and lots of machines that make household far less burdensome than it used to be) didn't exist in the past. And most of those changes are good. Some are, arguably, less good--I think the fact that we've lost (in the US first, elsewhere is catching up) community/cultural ideas about eating and mealtime and see it as another expression of simple individual pleasure and choice, to go on in an unlimited way, is probably not great, but people generally like these kinds of changes on the whole.
I'd agree with you except I think more than 60% of the adult population in the US is over weight right now and the health implications of that is staggering. We don't need to go back in time but new norms and some sort of food culture needs to be reestablished, IMO.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
I'd view it more as a societal failure. At any other point in history this would not have happened. I understand there's a lot of shame, guilt and just emotional baggage in general associated with being overweight but when 30% of the worlds population is I think it moves beyond the individual. Take charge and responsibility to change your circumstances but for goodness sakes be kind to yourself -- you don't deserve contempt and derision.
I don't agree with this either. (Well, no, I agree with the last two sentences, but not the idea that it's a "societal failure.")
The reason overweight hasn't been an issue in the past is that the conditions which permit it (easy and cheap access to food, food in unprecedented variety, the mass population in jobs which are reasonably sedentary, the existence of the automobile and lots of machines that make household far less burdensome than it used to be) didn't exist in the past. And most of those changes are good. Some are, arguably, less good--I think the fact that we've lost (in the US first, elsewhere is catching up) community/cultural ideas about eating and mealtime and see it as another expression of simple individual pleasure and choice, to go on in an unlimited way, is probably not great, but people generally like these kinds of changes on the whole.
I'd agree with you except I think more than 60% of the adult population in the US is over weight right now and the health implications of that is staggering. We don't need to go back in time but new norms and some sort of food culture needs to be reestablished, IMO.
That's really hard, though. I guess I'm more skeptical about what we can just decide to do, as a society, especially about something where the causes are so tough to sort out (in that they are largely individual, although influenced by all kinds of cultural and structural things). There ARE structural changes I'd support--although I'm skeptical about how much difference they would make--but my perception is certainly not that society is to blame for my weight issues. Although I think I am ultimately responsible, I'd say that if anything, human nature/biology is to blame, plus my good fortune in being born into a time with all the things I mentioned above.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
I'd view it more as a societal failure. At any other point in history this would not have happened. I understand there's a lot of shame, guilt and just emotional baggage in general associated with being overweight but when 30% of the worlds population is I think it moves beyond the individual. Take charge and responsibility to change your circumstances but for goodness sakes be kind to yourself -- you don't deserve contempt and derision.
I don't agree with this either. (Well, no, I agree with the last two sentences, but not the idea that it's a "societal failure.")
The reason overweight hasn't been an issue in the past is that the conditions which permit it (easy and cheap access to food, food in unprecedented variety, the mass population in jobs which are reasonably sedentary, the existence of the automobile and lots of machines that make household far less burdensome than it used to be) didn't exist in the past. And most of those changes are good. Some are, arguably, less good--I think the fact that we've lost (in the US first, elsewhere is catching up) community/cultural ideas about eating and mealtime and see it as another expression of simple individual pleasure and choice, to go on in an unlimited way, is probably not great, but people generally like these kinds of changes on the whole.
I'd agree with you except I think more than 60% of the adult population in the US is over weight right now and the health implications of that is staggering. We don't need to go back in time but new norms and some sort of food culture needs to be reestablished, IMO.
That's really hard, though. I guess I'm more skeptical about what we can just decide to do, as a society, especially about something where the causes are so tough to sort out (in that they are largely individual, although influenced by all kinds of cultural and structural things). There ARE structural changes I'd support--although I'm skeptical about how much difference they would make--but my perception is certainly not that society is to blame for my weight issues. Although I think I am ultimately responsible, I'd say that if anything, human nature/biology is to blame, plus my good fortune in being born into a time with all the things I mentioned above.
I think this sort of thing develops organically over the generations (I've never studied it so I don't know). But I'm not sure it can be forced when we may not have the solution yet. I'm not blaming society for the individual (we're all responsible for our actions) but I do think it's worthwhile to try and look beyond ourselves to see how society is influencing our thoughts and actions, which is admittedly hard to recognize.0 -
As a society the I medical aid insurance companies have taken the lead in South Africa. I think it began when SA was label the 3rd obese country in the world about 5 years ago. The health implications and cost to the health care and insurance companies were taken into consideration and a points and rewards system was introduced.
The healthier your lifestyle, the cheaper your premiums and the more you are rewarded. The rewards include instant discounts on your shopping for healthy food choices, fitness gear, travel, hotel and car hire . They also included actual cash returns into your bank account.
In 5 years the number of heart attacks and cases of diabetes have dropped significantly and so have the number of strokes. Most restaurants, including fast food chains have healthy choice options and Nandos has even partnered with my Medical Aid company.
Points are also awarded for regular screening and fitness assessments.0 -
Not really. I had bad eating habits, but my parents added fuel to the fire. My mom cooks whatever the hell she wants to for dinner, then it's somehow my fault that I'm overweight. Don't give me that "a calorie is a calorie" crap either. Yes, you could lose weight if you ate 1600-1700 calories worth of Skittles every day, but how are you going to feel eating junk like that? Will your body feel fine or will you feel sick? No foods are off limits, but your dietary choices matter.0
-
KingofWisdom wrote: »Not really. I had bad eating habits, but my parents added fuel to the fire. My mom cooks whatever the hell she wants to for dinner, then it's somehow my fault that I'm overweight. Don't give me that "a calorie is a calorie" crap either. Yes, you could lose weight if you ate 1600-1700 calories worth of Skittles every day, but how are you going to feel eating junk like that? Will your body feel fine or will you feel sick? No foods are off limits, but your dietary choices matter.
Unless you are too young to cook for yourself (or offer to help in the kitchen) the bolded is just an excuse, and a piss poor one at that.
And one meal a day =/= eating skittles all day every day......
0 -
KingofWisdom wrote: »My mom cooks whatever the hell she wants to for dinner, then it's somehow my fault that I'm overweight.
Yes, it is.
Stop slagging your mom.
Put less on your plate, put your fork down, push your chair away from the table sooner....you could lose weight if you ate 1600-1700 calories worth of Skittles every day...
Unless you're going to claim that's what your mum is feeding you, that's irrelevant.0 -
I love pizza. I love Thai food. I love subs. But I know for MYSELF that I cannot eat these often, or at least not without modifying them to be healthier (less oil, less bread [for calories only; I eat plenty of carbs!], less cheese
) Now I am eating much more veggies, quinoa, or smaller portions of the things I really love. Plus adding in working out 4-5 times a week, and I'm seeing the scale go down again. But I wouldn't hesitate to eat a brownie ( but I could resist the whole pan 
) 0 -
its perspective.
0 -
No time to read the whole thread, and missed the earlier one. But my two cents--I will always want to eat to excess. I still have a desire to face plant into something high calorie, particularly on bad or stressful days. But when I actually go to do it, I don't. Oh sure, I go over my calories (sometimes way over). But then I'm done; I don't do it daily anymore, nor do I want to. And my idea of "too much" is much less than it used to be. So I hope this means it is actually a lifestyle change, rather than a temporary diet.
Is the way I used to eat a failure? No, I didn't know any better--I don't consider ignorance a failure. Maybe it was willful ignorance, I don't know. I did make attempts to change before, it just took a while to figure it out, and my weight wasn't the most pressing issue in my life back then.
Now I've learned that I can control my weight, I have found the tools to do so, and I intend to keep on doing so. If I backslide and regain everything, it might be a failure. I guess it would depend on the circumstances, and I hope to never find out.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
Everyone has a lack of self-discipline, etc., about some things, first of all.
I see it as a matter of priorities. That I currently prioritize my weight and fitness and all that is great, and pleasurable for me, but if it wasn't on balance worth it to me, why would that make me a person with less character than the alternative.
I spend a lot of time reading good books, because that's something I prioritize (although I've done it less since getting obsessed with fitness). If someone else doesn't find the enjoyment I do in this and prefers to spend the same time doing something else (including, say, watching reality TV), does that make that person someone with less character? Or just someone with different interests and priorities?
There are all kinds of good reasons (and not so good) people may not bother to focus on their weight, but trying to make it into some kind of moral issue seems wrong to me. It's reasonably hard to even sort out how much is conscious and how much isn't.
I feel like you didn't answer his question. And I don't really get your analogy about books vs. reality tv.
An analogy that makes more sense to me would be someone not prioritizing paying their bills because they'd rather read books or watch reality tv than deal with the headache of their finances. If someone thought that paying their bills (i.e. being responsible) was less of a priority than the fun of books and television, that seems like a negative quality to me.
In this analogy, is it "judgy" to see that someone has prioritized immediate gratification, and suffers from a lack of discipline, and the negative consequences of both traits in this analogy are as clear as the consequences of prioritizing overeating, and that these are not positive qualities with positive outcomes for anyone?
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
Everyone has a lack of self-discipline, etc., about some things, first of all.
I see it as a matter of priorities. That I currently prioritize my weight and fitness and all that is great, and pleasurable for me, but if it wasn't on balance worth it to me, why would that make me a person with less character than the alternative.
I spend a lot of time reading good books, because that's something I prioritize (although I've done it less since getting obsessed with fitness). If someone else doesn't find the enjoyment I do in this and prefers to spend the same time doing something else (including, say, watching reality TV), does that make that person someone with less character? Or just someone with different interests and priorities?
There are all kinds of good reasons (and not so good) people may not bother to focus on their weight, but trying to make it into some kind of moral issue seems wrong to me. It's reasonably hard to even sort out how much is conscious and how much isn't.
I feel like you didn't answer his question. And I don't really get your analogy about books vs. reality tv.
An analogy that makes more sense to me would be someone not prioritizing paying their bills because they'd rather read books or watch reality tv than deal with the headache of their finances. If someone thought that paying their bills (i.e. being responsible) was less of a priority than the fun of books and television, that seems like a negative quality to me.
You are assuming that someone has an affirmative responsibility to maintain a particular weight, and if so then they are failing to meet that responsibility if they become overweight.
I don't accept that premise--if I am happy at 165 instead of 125, say (I'm 5'3), I'm not convinced I'm violating a responsibility that I owe. I think it's more a matter of priorities--just as if I choose to spend my time doing something that I consider of worth (say reading books), that doesn't give me grounds to claim that someone who doesn't is violating their responsibilities (even if my personal thought is that humans ought to make the most of their intellectual capacities and not doing so is a waste).
For some reason people who would never say that failing to live up to one's intellectual potential or, say, fitness potential (as in ability to lift weights or run) or even money-making potential or charity-providing potential or being minimally educated so as to be an informed citizen potential is thereby irresponsible or not self-disciplined and showing a lack of character or some such LOVE to make such statements about someone not being as healthy as possible. Indeed, it's not simply not being as healthy as possible as plenty of people don't eat and drink so as to be as healthy as possible, don't exercise, take too many risks, etc.--it's specifically being overweight.
To me it's all the same. If someone doesn't mind being overweight, it's no one else's business except, in the way that intimate choices always are, family.In this analogy, is it "judgy" to see that someone has prioritized immediate gratification, and suffers from a lack of discipline, and the negative consequences of both traits in this analogy are as clear as the consequences of prioritizing overeating, and that these are not positive qualities with positive outcomes for anyone?
Not analogous, for the reasons I stated above.
I also think it's a lot more complicated than to say that people are overweight because they prioritized "immediate gratification."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
Everyone has a lack of self-discipline, etc., about some things, first of all.
I see it as a matter of priorities. That I currently prioritize my weight and fitness and all that is great, and pleasurable for me, but if it wasn't on balance worth it to me, why would that make me a person with less character than the alternative.
I spend a lot of time reading good books, because that's something I prioritize (although I've done it less since getting obsessed with fitness). If someone else doesn't find the enjoyment I do in this and prefers to spend the same time doing something else (including, say, watching reality TV), does that make that person someone with less character? Or just someone with different interests and priorities?
There are all kinds of good reasons (and not so good) people may not bother to focus on their weight, but trying to make it into some kind of moral issue seems wrong to me. It's reasonably hard to even sort out how much is conscious and how much isn't.
I feel like you didn't answer his question. And I don't really get your analogy about books vs. reality tv.
An analogy that makes more sense to me would be someone not prioritizing paying their bills because they'd rather read books or watch reality tv than deal with the headache of their finances. If someone thought that paying their bills (i.e. being responsible) was less of a priority than the fun of books and television, that seems like a negative quality to me.
You are assuming that someone has an affirmative responsibility to maintain a particular weight, and if so then they are failing to meet that responsibility if they become overweight.
I don't accept that premise--if I am happy at 165 instead of 125, say (I'm 5'3), I'm not convinced I'm violating a responsibility that I owe. I think it's more a matter of priorities--just as if I choose to spend my time doing something that I consider of worth (say reading books), that doesn't give me grounds to claim that someone who doesn't is violating their responsibilities (even if my personal thought is that humans ought to make the most of their intellectual capacities and not doing so is a waste).
For some reason people who would never say that failing to live up to one's intellectual potential or, say, fitness potential (as in ability to lift weights or run) or even money-making potential or charity-providing potential or being minimally educated so as to be an informed citizen potential is thereby irresponsible or not self-disciplined and showing a lack of character or some such LOVE to make such statements about someone not being as healthy as possible. Indeed, it's not simply not being as healthy as possible as plenty of people don't eat and drink so as to be as healthy as possible, don't exercise, take too many risks, etc.--it's specifically being overweight.
To me it's all the same. If someone doesn't mind being overweight, it's no one else's business except, in the way that intimate choices always are, family.In this analogy, is it "judgy" to see that someone has prioritized immediate gratification, and suffers from a lack of discipline, and the negative consequences of both traits in this analogy are as clear as the consequences of prioritizing overeating, and that these are not positive qualities with positive outcomes for anyone?
Not analogous, for the reasons I stated above.
I also think it's a lot more complicated than to say that people are overweight because they prioritized "immediate gratification."
Honestly, I'm trying to figure out which part of my recent gain was the gratifying part - the trips in and out of the hospital, not being able to afford my meds, or being restricted for weeks at a time to bedrest. If someone wants to assume that gaining weight, while being totally ignorant of the reason why, must be due to immediate gratification, I'd absolutely put that in the judgy category. I also suspect I know quite a few women in their third trimester who would care to have a word with Lourdesong about that particular judgment.0 -
Honestly, I'm trying to figure out which part of my recent gain was the gratifying part - the trips in and out of the hospital, not being able to afford my meds, or being restricted for weeks at a time to bedrest. If someone wants to assume that gaining weight, while being totally ignorant of the reason why, must be due to immediate gratification, I'd absolutely put that in the judgy category. I also suspect I know quite a few women in their third trimester who would care to have a word with Lourdesong about that particular judgment.
If you followed the conversation, you'd see that in the posters question I referred to (which I asserted that Lemurcat did not answer), "health issues and such" is being disregarded [for sake of discussion]. If it's alright with you I'd like it to stay that way because my reasons for being overweight, and most people reasons for being overweight, was not outside of their control.
And what I'm perceiving is irritation by some that I (and some others) view our overeating and weight problem as a personal failure (in the "short coming of character" sense). And are taking it very personally, as if there has been some transgression if we aren't constantly falsely inflating our self-esteem for no good reason.
@lemurcat12 I will respond to your post in a bit.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
Everyone has a lack of self-discipline, etc., about some things, first of all.
I see it as a matter of priorities. That I currently prioritize my weight and fitness and all that is great, and pleasurable for me, but if it wasn't on balance worth it to me, why would that make me a person with less character than the alternative.
I spend a lot of time reading good books, because that's something I prioritize (although I've done it less since getting obsessed with fitness). If someone else doesn't find the enjoyment I do in this and prefers to spend the same time doing something else (including, say, watching reality TV), does that make that person someone with less character? Or just someone with different interests and priorities?
There are all kinds of good reasons (and not so good) people may not bother to focus on their weight, but trying to make it into some kind of moral issue seems wrong to me. It's reasonably hard to even sort out how much is conscious and how much isn't.
I feel like you didn't answer his question. And I don't really get your analogy about books vs. reality tv.
An analogy that makes more sense to me would be someone not prioritizing paying their bills because they'd rather read books or watch reality tv than deal with the headache of their finances. If someone thought that paying their bills (i.e. being responsible) was less of a priority than the fun of books and television, that seems like a negative quality to me.
You are assuming that someone has an affirmative responsibility to maintain a particular weight, and if so then they are failing to meet that responsibility if they become overweight.
They may be skirting their responsibility to maintain, not a weight that I or the BMI says they should be, but the weight they would be happy with being, yes. In other words, choosing overeating and weight gain instead of the weight/size (whatever it is) they want, all because they like pizza and lots of it...or whatever.I don't accept that premise--if I am happy at 165 instead of 125, say (I'm 5'3), I'm not convinced I'm violating a responsibility that I owe. I think it's more a matter of priorities--just as if I choose to spend my time doing something that I consider of worth (say reading books), that doesn't give me grounds to claim that someone who doesn't is violating their responsibilities (even if my personal thought is that humans ought to make the most of their intellectual capacities and not doing so is a waste).
Right, let's say you're happy at 165, then. If you choose again and again to overeat knowing full well that this will result in weight gain, and continue to do it anyway even if it means you will balloon well beyond 165 - the weight you say you're happy being - are you not making an irresponsible trade off and cheating yourself for what? To be unrestrained around pizza or whatever foods you love?For some reason people who would never say that failing to live up to one's intellectual potential or, say, fitness potential (as in ability to lift weights or run) or even money-making potential or charity-providing potential or being minimally educated so as to be an informed citizen potential is thereby irresponsible or not self-disciplined and showing a lack of character or some such LOVE to make such statements about someone not being as healthy as possible. Indeed, it's not simply not being as healthy as possible as plenty of people don't eat and drink so as to be as healthy as possible, don't exercise, take too many risks, etc.--it's specifically being overweight.
To me it's all the same. If someone doesn't mind being overweight, it's no one else's business except, in the way that intimate choices always are, family.
I haven't set any standard for anyone else. I failed to meet my own standard I set for myself, because pizza is delicious and whole pizzas are tastier than 2-3 slices, and all that. I cheated myself by making irresponsible choices. Anyone else's standard they have for themselves is indeed their business, I haven't dictated anyone's standard. What I have done is talked about how we operate to meet or fail to meet our standards.I also think it's a lot more complicated than to say that people are overweight because they prioritized "immediate gratification."
I don't think it's a stretch that most people's weight problems (barring health issues, since some people need that qualifier in every post) are because of repeated prolonged behavior of eating to excess.
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »An analogy that makes more sense to me would be someone not prioritizing paying their bills because they'd rather read books or watch reality tv than deal with the headache of their finances. If someone thought that paying their bills (i.e. being responsible) was less of a priority than the fun of books and television, that seems like a negative quality to me.
In this analogy, is it "judgy" to see that someone has prioritized immediate gratification, and suffers from a lack of discipline, and the negative consequences of both traits in this analogy are as clear as the consequences of prioritizing overeating, and that these are not positive qualities with positive outcomes for anyone?
You are making some huge assumptions and logical leaps.
I know plenty of people who really don't give a flying crap about their weight because they spend 24-7 working their butts off at things that are really important to them, and really hard to do.
This "gratification" schtick you're running here is not just judgemental, it's plain wrong as a generalization.
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »An analogy that makes more sense to me would be someone not prioritizing paying their bills because they'd rather read books or watch reality tv than deal with the headache of their finances. If someone thought that paying their bills (i.e. being responsible) was less of a priority than the fun of books and television, that seems like a negative quality to me.
In this analogy, is it "judgy" to see that someone has prioritized immediate gratification, and suffers from a lack of discipline, and the negative consequences of both traits in this analogy are as clear as the consequences of prioritizing overeating, and that these are not positive qualities with positive outcomes for anyone?
You are making some huge assumptions and logical leaps.
I know plenty of people who really don't give a flying crap about their weight because they spend 24-7 working their butts off at things that are really important to them, and really hard to do.
This "gratification" schtick you're running here is not just judgemental, it's plain wrong as a generalization.
Are they choosing working hard over maintaining their weight? Are they choosing overeating over maintaining their weight?
I don't really understand your point about the people you know or why their working hard has anything to do with how much food they put in their mouth or what weight they are happy about being.
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
Everyone has a lack of self-discipline, etc., about some things, first of all.
I see it as a matter of priorities. That I currently prioritize my weight and fitness and all that is great, and pleasurable for me, but if it wasn't on balance worth it to me, why would that make me a person with less character than the alternative.
I spend a lot of time reading good books, because that's something I prioritize (although I've done it less since getting obsessed with fitness). If someone else doesn't find the enjoyment I do in this and prefers to spend the same time doing something else (including, say, watching reality TV), does that make that person someone with less character? Or just someone with different interests and priorities?
There are all kinds of good reasons (and not so good) people may not bother to focus on their weight, but trying to make it into some kind of moral issue seems wrong to me. It's reasonably hard to even sort out how much is conscious and how much isn't.
I feel like you didn't answer his question. And I don't really get your analogy about books vs. reality tv.
An analogy that makes more sense to me would be someone not prioritizing paying their bills because they'd rather read books or watch reality tv than deal with the headache of their finances. If someone thought that paying their bills (i.e. being responsible) was less of a priority than the fun of books and television, that seems like a negative quality to me.
You are assuming that someone has an affirmative responsibility to maintain a particular weight, and if so then they are failing to meet that responsibility if they become overweight.
They may be skirting their responsibility to maintain, not a weight that I or the BMI says they should be, but the weight they would be happy with being, yes. In other words, choosing overeating and weight gain instead of the weight/size (whatever it is) they want, all because they like pizza and lots of it...or whatever.
Wait, aren't we talking about people who aren't bothered about being overweight? People who simply don't care or, given a choice between losing weight and having to restrict their eating, don't care that much?
For example, until my mid-20s I was 125-130. In my mind that was non-ideal--I thought 115 would be much better--but I didn't really know how to lose weight and whenever I thought about learning what to do or doing one of those diets you see or having to count calories (pre fun computer apps) it seemed burdensome and unpleasant, whereas I knew I could maintain a weight I thought was okay (though not ideal) and eat whatever I wanted.
I decided (consciously and not) that I'd rather eat whatever I wanted.
I don't see that as a violation of some responsibility, I see it as making a reasonable choice about priorities.
Later, I gained a bunch of weight through some careless eating and becoming less active (and I'm most critical of myself for the less active bit, but mostly I think I was kind of clueless). After I reached 150 I stopped weighing myself and was somewhat in denial about just how heavy I was until I saw a photo at 180 and flipped out and decided to lose the weight. At that point I cared.
After maintaining that loss for some years I went through stuff (like everyone, of course) and for me that meant that maintaining my loss wasn't a priority and I fell back into some bad habits and, especially, was not active. Imagining myself in that situation now, I think there were more effective ways I could have dealt and I wish I'd done certain things earlier in life (like getting some therapy), but I just don't feel like there was a significant moral component to gaining weight or not eating at my maintenance calorie level (or not counting calories or figuring out how to cut back once I knew I was losing). For me, during that period of my life, I didn't care enough about not being overweight. I cared about not drinking (and for me that meant I had somewhat limited will power in other areas of life) and I was incredibly stressed at work (which yes didn't prevent me from eating well, but it used up emotional energy that I later spent on getting back into a more fit lifestyle when I was less stressed). Would it have been better if I'd been someone capable of doing all these things at once? Sure, probably, but there are plenty of things I've done that others haven't--people are different and have different strengths and weaknesses and for me I was doing my best at that time and I just don't think the weight gain was that big a deal. (And maybe if I did I'd not have gained, who knows.)
Anyway, I eventually cared again, or felt more able to focus on other things, so I lost the weight.
In the overall list of things I've done that I'm ashamed of and things I've done that I'm proud of, getting fat and getting thin (well, average) are both pretty neutral. Getting fit and accomplishing certain athletic goals are things I feel more proud of, I suppose.Right, let's say you're happy at 165, then. If you choose again and again to overeat knowing full well that this will result in weight gain, and continue to do it anyway even if it means you will balloon well beyond 165 - the weight you say you're happy being - are you not making an irresponsible trade off and cheating yourself for what? To be unrestrained around pizza or whatever foods you love?
The person is deciding whether the trade off is worth it to them. My premise was someone who chose to maintain at 165, because she could eat more or could maintain without worrying about it, vs. getting to a non-overweight weight.
If she chooses to allow herself to gain, presumably she either doesn't care that much vs. the other things which would have to change (and so the question becomes why should she?), OR she doesn't perceive that she's making a choice (which I think is common--people feel powerless when they are not all the time, but belief matters to action).
I think people who continue to gain at the expense of their health and say it doesn't matter, they don't care about all the things they are missing out, on are terribly sad. But at that point I don't think it's a failure of responsibility, I think they are stuck and need to figure out that they have options.I haven't set any standard for anyone else. I failed to meet my own standard I set for myself, because pizza is delicious and whole pizzas are tastier than 2-3 slices, and all that. I cheated myself by making irresponsible choices. Anyone else's standard they have for themselves is indeed their business, I haven't dictated anyone's standard. What I have done is talked about how we operate to meet or fail to meet our standards.
Then we are talking past each other. I'm not questioning what you say about yourself--that's your business. I just wouldn't apply that to everyone else who happens to be overweight and say that they failed to meet some responsibility or standard (as I understood the post I replied to above to be saying).I don't think it's a stretch that most people's weight problems (barring health issues, since some people need that qualifier in every post) are because of repeated prolonged behavior of eating to excess.
Sure, but that can be pretty subtle, and a lot more complicated (psychologically, in particular) than "jeez, I really want to eat a whole pizza and can't give that up to avoid diabetes" as it was presented.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »pavingnewpaths wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »I guess I was using a definition of failure that had to with what I feel was a lack of character. And I personally would put "Not caring" in that "lack of character" camp.
I wouldn't. (I'd consider it neutral.)
Disregarding circumstances out of your control (health issues and such), why would you say it's neutral?
I wouldn't particularly use the term "character" just because it's a bit vague. But it certainly shows a lack of self-discipline and a need for instant gratification, along with many other things. All of which are negative qualities, in my own opinion.
Everyone has a lack of self-discipline, etc., about some things, first of all.
I see it as a matter of priorities. That I currently prioritize my weight and fitness and all that is great, and pleasurable for me, but if it wasn't on balance worth it to me, why would that make me a person with less character than the alternative.
I spend a lot of time reading good books, because that's something I prioritize (although I've done it less since getting obsessed with fitness). If someone else doesn't find the enjoyment I do in this and prefers to spend the same time doing something else (including, say, watching reality TV), does that make that person someone with less character? Or just someone with different interests and priorities?
There are all kinds of good reasons (and not so good) people may not bother to focus on their weight, but trying to make it into some kind of moral issue seems wrong to me. It's reasonably hard to even sort out how much is conscious and how much isn't.
I feel like you didn't answer his question. And I don't really get your analogy about books vs. reality tv.
An analogy that makes more sense to me would be someone not prioritizing paying their bills because they'd rather read books or watch reality tv than deal with the headache of their finances. If someone thought that paying their bills (i.e. being responsible) was less of a priority than the fun of books and television, that seems like a negative quality to me.
You are assuming that someone has an affirmative responsibility to maintain a particular weight, and if so then they are failing to meet that responsibility if they become overweight.
They may be skirting their responsibility to maintain, not a weight that I or the BMI says they should be, but the weight they would be happy with being, yes. In other words, choosing overeating and weight gain instead of the weight/size (whatever it is) they want, all because they like pizza and lots of it...or whatever.
Wait, aren't we talking about people who aren't bothered about being overweight? People who simply don't care or, given a choice between losing weight and having to restrict their eating, don't care that much?
I wasn't talking about people who aren't bothered by being overweight. Perhaps that's why there is some confusion here, and that could be on me, not sure. I was taking an attitude of "not caring" (about overeating and the consequences of it, in particular) as something more like a "screw it" mentality.
I wasn't taking "not caring" as "I don't care that I'm overweight according to BMI, or I don't care that I haven't lost some vanity pounds, I'm happy the weight I am."
I understood this thread to be about overeating, portion sizes, etc. Though body size is related (mainly in outcome), it's eating behaviors and mentalities around it that I thought we were discussing.For example, until my mid-20s I was 125-130. In my mind that was non-ideal--I thought 115 would be much better--but I didn't really know how to lose weight and whenever I thought about learning what to do or doing one of those diets you see or having to count calories (pre fun computer apps) it seemed burdensome and unpleasant, whereas I knew I could maintain a weight I thought was okay (though not ideal) and eat whatever I wanted.
I decided (consciously and not) that I'd rather eat whatever I wanted.
I don't see that as a violation of some responsibility, I see it as making a reasonable choice about priorities.
Later, I gained a bunch of weight through some careless eating and becoming less active (and I'm most critical of myself for the less active bit, but mostly I think I was kind of clueless). After I reached 150 I stopped weighing myself and was somewhat in denial about just how heavy I was until I saw a photo at 180 and flipped out and decided to lose the weight. At that point I cared.
After maintaining that loss for some years I went through stuff (like everyone, of course) and for me that meant that maintaining my loss wasn't a priority and I fell back into some bad habits and, especially, was not active. Imagining myself in that situation now, I think there were more effective ways I could have dealt and I wish I'd done certain things earlier in life (like getting some therapy), but I just don't feel like there was a significant moral component to gaining weight or not eating at my maintenance calorie level (or not counting calories or figuring out how to cut back once I knew I was losing). For me, during that period of my life, I didn't care enough about not being overweight. I cared about not drinking (and for me that meant I had somewhat limited will power in other areas of life) and I was incredibly stressed at work (which yes didn't prevent me from eating well, but it used up emotional energy that I later spent on getting back into a more fit lifestyle when I was less stressed). Would it have been better if I'd been someone capable of doing all these things at once? Sure, probably, but there are plenty of things I've done that others haven't--people are different and have different strengths and weaknesses and for me I was doing my best at that time and I just don't think the weight gain was that big a deal. (And maybe if I did I'd not have gained, who knows.)
Anyway, I eventually cared again, or felt more able to focus on other things, so I lost the weight.
In the overall list of things I've done that I'm ashamed of and things I've done that I'm proud of, getting fat and getting thin (well, average) are both pretty neutral. Getting fit and accomplishing certain athletic goals are things I feel more proud of, I suppose.Right, let's say you're happy at 165, then. If you choose again and again to overeat knowing full well that this will result in weight gain, and continue to do it anyway even if it means you will balloon well beyond 165 - the weight you say you're happy being - are you not making an irresponsible trade off and cheating yourself for what? To be unrestrained around pizza or whatever foods you love?
The person is deciding whether the trade off is worth it to them. My premise was someone who chose to maintain at 165, because she could eat more or could maintain without worrying about it, vs. getting to a non-overweight weight.
If she chooses to allow herself to gain, presumably she either doesn't care that much vs. the other things which would have to change (and so the question becomes why should she?), OR she doesn't perceive that she's making a choice (which I think is common--people feel powerless when they are not all the time, but belief matters to action).
I think people who continue to gain at the expense of their health and say it doesn't matter, they don't care about all the things they are missing out, on are terribly sad. But at that point I don't think it's a failure of responsibility, I think they are stuck and need to figure out that they have options.I haven't set any standard for anyone else. I failed to meet my own standard I set for myself, because pizza is delicious and whole pizzas are tastier than 2-3 slices, and all that. I cheated myself by making irresponsible choices. Anyone else's standard they have for themselves is indeed their business, I haven't dictated anyone's standard. What I have done is talked about how we operate to meet or fail to meet our standards.
Then we are talking past each other. I'm not questioning what you say about yourself--that's your business. I just wouldn't apply that to everyone else who happens to be overweight and say that they failed to meet some responsibility or standard (as I understood the post I replied to above to be saying).
Yes, I think we have been talking past each other, but it has been interesting discussion nonetheless.
Regardless, I think that we talking past each other is cemented here, because you're perceiving me to be talking about overweight bodies (overweight according to who?) when what I'm talking about is overeating (the amount of which varies by individual, but the consequences are the same if done consistently enough).
0 -
The thread started out asking how we all view our own old habits. It's ended up as a JudgementFest on other people's habits.
0 -
-
BlackScorpio91 wrote: »DedRepublic wrote: »You just have to decide what you want more....brownies...or weight loss. Or count the calories in brownies and stay at a deficit.
My advice would be to have a cheat meal (NOT DAY) once a week. And on this meal add brownies. For me...Saturday night is cheat meal...usually family date night and date night with wifey. We always go out to eat...it is mandatory. On this meal I splurge a little.
This
My Cheat Meal from Saturday. I was down 3 lbs on the week and needed to make up som cals...plus I'm love the Monte Cristo meal so I added it to my usual. See...I splurge sometimes...but once and only once per week...sometimes I dream about this meal during the week especially if I'm low carbing it...makes it that much more satisfying. Now on the Cheat Meal it is best to limit it to 45 minutes or less and for me it takes the place of meals 5 and 6 on Saturday...so I do not eat again on the day after this meal. Also best to keep the Cheat Meal to night time as doing in over lunch may lead to more cheating throughout the day. Also this meal is productive for me as I usually workout heavy 2 hours before the meal...so I give those carbs some place to go.
Man, that's evil. Do I even want to know what's on the plate with the fries? Yes, I do and then I can have fantasies about eating it.
A Monte Cristo sandwich. I'd recognize it anywhere. Fried Ham and Cheese sandwich with powdered sugar on top. The restaurant I used to get mine at would serve it with a side of Raspberry jam. Cut a piece, put jam on it and yum!
ETA- it looks like there's jam on that plate too.
The jam is Raspberry Jam!! Yes this is the Monte Crisco and it is the stuff of dreams. I would literally have ribs in my right hand and Monte Crico Sandwich in my left and and just alternate. I'm salivating at the mouth thinking about it now...let the dreams begin...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions