I cannot control my appetite or binging
Replies
-
If I were you I would monitor my water intake to make sure I'm drinking enough water each day. I have personally found that the less carbs I eat the less hungry I feel. I don't think you have to get super low or anything but cutting back on carbs has helped me.0
-
For me, carbohydrates are never filling... never. Years ago I changed to eating most "incidental" carbs. This just means I don't eat things like toast and jam (which is pretty much all carbs), but I will gladly eat carbs that are part of a more balanced macronutrient make-up (i.e. cottage cheese has carbs, or a hamburger has carbs in the bun).
This isn't science, it's just a trick that I use to manage my intake. I know that by eating incidental carbs (pairing carbs with protein and fat), I am not going to be hungry in just a couple of hours.
Of course I am still flexible. If I am at a Mexican restaurant, I will eat chips and salsa... If I'm at a birthday party, I will eat a piece of cake if it pleases the host. We don't have to be robotic, we can still have flexibility and still pick and choose what we eat in certain limited situations.
But just like any good budgeter has rules for their spending habits, this is one of my own rules for managing intake, and it works pretty effortlessly.0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »KatsuNinja wrote: »TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »There are no good or bad foods. Only eating the right amount of calories.
I'd have to strongly disagree. You can have a small chocolate bar, or a generous bowl of steamed veggies and dahl - same amount of calories, but I bet I know which one will send you lurking in the cupboards 30min later!
The type of food that you eat makes a massive difference. Don't deny yourself food and make yourself miserable - instead, try snacking on low carb/higher protein things, do a little but of research, it's what's going to get you there in the long run.
Absolutely
Only on MFP have is seen people attempt to argue that a honey bun and bowl of black beans are equal foods when the calorie count is equal.
Agree. Foods can be equal calorie and have vastly different health and satiety profiles. While it's true that you could lose weight eating only twinkies, I'd like to see someone try. I'm guessing they would be walking around hungry all day.0 -
DeeJayShank wrote: »Foods can be equal calorie and have vastly different health and satiety profiles.
Of course. I've never seen anyone question that on MFP.
What people do point out is that there is some variation on what makes us feel satisfied. For example, advice was given above to avoid chicken with skin, as that's supposedly less satiating for the calories, but I find that including cuts of meat that have some fat actually helps me feel more satisfied, and there's no difficult in feeling full on a meal of appropriate calories that includes some chicken with skin, lots of veggies, and a starch, for me. If that's a problem for others, they should eat accordingly, but telling people they must avoid certain foods is not good advice.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeeJayShank wrote: »Foods can be equal calorie and have vastly different health and satiety profiles.
Of course. I've never seen anyone question that on MFP.
What people do point out is that there is some variation on what makes us feel satisfied. For example, advice was given above to avoid chicken with skin, as that's supposedly less satiating for the calories, but I find that including cuts of meat that have some fat actually helps me feel more satisfied, and there's no difficult in feeling full on a meal of appropriate calories that includes some chicken with skin, lots of veggies, and a starch, for me. If that's a problem for others, they should eat accordingly, but telling people they must avoid certain foods is not good advice.
I have definitely seen the IIFYM crowd on here claim that all macros are created equal. This premise completely ignores the fact that some macros are more satisfying than others. That was my point. I do believe in the power o IIFYM as a first step, but I also believe in choosing macros that help manage intake. And thus not all macros are created equal.
You'll hear no argument from me on your second point. It really is bad advice to recommend a complete aversion to some foods, because this is not easily sustainable in the long term.
That being said, I personally choose to avoid certain foods because the risk/reward profile isn't great. For example, I like spaghetti, but I prefer pizza. So when given the choice, I choose pizza because the macros in pizza more closely match my goals, and also because I prefer pizza period.
This, of course, is not the same as "avoiding" spaghetti, but instead recognizing that as much as I like spaghetti, I also like being thin and there are other preferred foods I like just as much as spaghetti, if not more, that will help to keep me thin.
I always go back the analogy of food and money. When you only have so much to spend, you choose not to buy expensive things because that would hurt your long-term goals. This is a healthy aversion, not a crazy one. Just because you COULD buy something expensive doesn't mean you ever should just for the heck of it. And thus the same goes for food. It's OK to cultivate a sense for one's self that certain food just are bad for long-term goals without providing substantive happiness, and being able to lose weight and maintain is about finding out which bad habits you need to get rid of, sometimes cold turkey.0 -
DeeJayShank wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »KatsuNinja wrote: »TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »There are no good or bad foods. Only eating the right amount of calories.
I'd have to strongly disagree. You can have a small chocolate bar, or a generous bowl of steamed veggies and dahl - same amount of calories, but I bet I know which one will send you lurking in the cupboards 30min later!
The type of food that you eat makes a massive difference. Don't deny yourself food and make yourself miserable - instead, try snacking on low carb/higher protein things, do a little but of research, it's what's going to get you there in the long run.
Absolutely
Only on MFP have is seen people attempt to argue that a honey bun and bowl of black beans are equal foods when the calorie count is equal.
Agree. Foods can be equal calorie and have vastly different health and satiety profiles. While it's true that you could lose weight eating only twinkies, I'd like to see someone try. I'm guessing they would be walking around hungry all day.
After the useful why-you-should-weigh-your-food video, this is the most frequently posted link I've seen on the General boards: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
So yes, the "100 calories of honey buns is equal to 100 calories of black beans" type of argument is indeed sadly prevalent here.
0 -
KatsuNinja wrote: »TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »There are no good or bad foods. Only eating the right amount of calories.
I'd have to strongly disagree. You can have a small chocolate bar, or a generous bowl of steamed veggies and dahl - same amount of calories, but I bet I know which one will send you lurking in the cupboards 30min later!
The type of food that you eat makes a massive difference. Don't deny yourself food and make yourself miserable - instead, try snacking on low carb/higher protein things, do a little but of research, it's what's going to get you there in the long run.
Steamed veggies or a small chocolate? One feeds your body; the other your soul. There is no reason to not enjoy both.0 -
make big actual meals that will fill you up and satisfy you . I find starches really fill me up like rice, quinoa,potatoes,sweet potatoes,oats,rice pasta
eat more calories and stay consistent at it that will help with the binging
pre weigh and measure out snacks you can have threw out the day
make sure you are getting at least 2 liters of water in a day
0 -
DeeJayShank wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeeJayShank wrote: »Foods can be equal calorie and have vastly different health and satiety profiles.
Of course. I've never seen anyone question that on MFP.
What people do point out is that there is some variation on what makes us feel satisfied. For example, advice was given above to avoid chicken with skin, as that's supposedly less satiating for the calories, but I find that including cuts of meat that have some fat actually helps me feel more satisfied, and there's no difficult in feeling full on a meal of appropriate calories that includes some chicken with skin, lots of veggies, and a starch, for me. If that's a problem for others, they should eat accordingly, but telling people they must avoid certain foods is not good advice.
I have definitely seen the IIFYM crowd on here claim that all macros are created equal. This premise completely ignores the fact that some macros are more satisfying than others. That was my point. I do believe in the power o IIFYM as a first step, but I also believe in choosing macros that help manage intake. And thus not all macros are created equal.
You'll hear no argument from me on your second point. It really is bad advice to recommend a complete aversion to some foods, because this is not easily sustainable in the long term.
That being said, I personally choose to avoid certain foods because the risk/reward profile isn't great. For example, I like spaghetti, but I prefer pizza. So when given the choice, I choose pizza because the macros in pizza more closely match my goals, and also because I prefer pizza period.
This, of course, is not the same as "avoiding" spaghetti, but instead recognizing that as much as I like spaghetti, I also like being thin and there are other preferred foods I like just as much as spaghetti, if not more, that will help to keep me thin.
I always go back the analogy of food and money. When you only have so much to spend, you choose not to buy expensive things because that would hurt your long-term goals. This is a healthy aversion, not a crazy one. Just because you COULD buy something expensive doesn't mean you ever should just for the heck of it. And thus the same goes for food. It's OK to cultivate a sense for one's self that certain food just are bad for long-term goals without providing substantive happiness, and being able to lose weight and maintain is about finding out which bad habits you need to get rid of, sometimes cold turkey.
@DeeJayShank WRONG!! You are reading into "IIFYM crowd" statements something that is not there. If they truly follow IIFYM or flexible dieting, they will say "all calories are created equal". I do not see the word MACRO anywhere in that statement. I dare you to go and find a knowledgeable follower of IIFYM that has said what you claim they are saying. You won't find one. However, you will find all kinds of people like yourself claiming that is what they are saying when that isn't even close.0 -
mbcieslak87 wrote: »We can't be your will-power for you. If you want to lose weight you have to learn how to control yourself.
Yes! I was 20 pounds overweight because I could not control my eating habits! I would clear 2500 calories a day, easy. Constant eating and GIANT portions. Now that I am weighing my food, adding every single thing I consume into my food diary, it has started to click and after a month eating smaller portions, it became easy to eat 1200 calories a day. I have lost the 20 pounds excess and then some
I keep chopped up veggies in my bag for when I am needing to snack, and always have a full bottle of water with me. If you are going to binge, drink a litre of water!
0 -
My apologies if this has been suggested and I missed it, but have you considered OA (over eaters anonymous)
It can't hurt and might even help by offering you some tools and insight.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »DeeJayShank wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »KatsuNinja wrote: »TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »There are no good or bad foods. Only eating the right amount of calories.
I'd have to strongly disagree. You can have a small chocolate bar, or a generous bowl of steamed veggies and dahl - same amount of calories, but I bet I know which one will send you lurking in the cupboards 30min later!
The type of food that you eat makes a massive difference. Don't deny yourself food and make yourself miserable - instead, try snacking on low carb/higher protein things, do a little but of research, it's what's going to get you there in the long run.
Absolutely
Only on MFP have is seen people attempt to argue that a honey bun and bowl of black beans are equal foods when the calorie count is equal.
Agree. Foods can be equal calorie and have vastly different health and satiety profiles. While it's true that you could lose weight eating only twinkies, I'd like to see someone try. I'm guessing they would be walking around hungry all day.
After the useful why-you-should-weigh-your-food video, this is the most frequently posted link I've seen on the General boards: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
So yes, the "100 calories of honey buns is equal to 100 calories of black beans" type of argument is indeed sadly prevalent here.
That's not what the Twinkie diet professor is posted to say.
It's always made clear in those threads that no one is saying that Twinkies are just like chicken breast or whatever. In fact, I've never seen one of those threads where people didn't repeatedly say "what you eat matters for nutrition and satiety." What is said is that all else held equal, you will lose weight based on the calories you eat, and not anything else. Also, I disagree that the Twinkie diet link is all that common--it seems to me that most often people on the moderate side or the "no bad foods" side say "you can fit in whatever you want in moderation, so long as you stick to your calories" and someone opposed to that idea brings up the ridiculous strawman "what if you want to eat only donuts." Obviously, no one normal wants to eat only donuts.
I heard a podcast with the Twinkie prof about what he was trying to accomplish--it was simply an illustration for a class--and he was kind of interesting. No one said nutrition doesn't matter or anything of the sort.
I find it really frustrating that people claim to think that the discussion is about foods not having any differences, because that to me is so obviously never said--I think it's usually an intentional distortion of what is said.
I'm on the "no need to eliminate foods you like" side and would disagree that it's somehow anti-nutrition to occasionally eat some chocolate or whatever (and I like to include ice cream in my diet and pizza occasionally), but I know a lot about nutrition and care about it and have never once said that foods are identical or that eating veggies doesn't matter.0 -
Tips that have worked for me (used to binge)
- keep healthy snacks readily available
- drink a glass of water before you eat anything everytime you eat
- drink a glass of water while eating
- & drink a glass of water after eating
- set up times you can eat meal (I eat breakfast at 8 lunch at 12:30 dinner at 5)
- pick certain times you can have a snack
- at one point I didn't allow any "junk" food in my house until I could control myself which I can happily say I have unhealthy food in my house that I don't eat0 -
DeeJayShank wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeeJayShank wrote: »Foods can be equal calorie and have vastly different health and satiety profiles.
Of course. I've never seen anyone question that on MFP.
What people do point out is that there is some variation on what makes us feel satisfied. For example, advice was given above to avoid chicken with skin, as that's supposedly less satiating for the calories, but I find that including cuts of meat that have some fat actually helps me feel more satisfied, and there's no difficult in feeling full on a meal of appropriate calories that includes some chicken with skin, lots of veggies, and a starch, for me. If that's a problem for others, they should eat accordingly, but telling people they must avoid certain foods is not good advice.
I have definitely seen the IIFYM crowd on here claim that all macros are created equal.
I've never seen that at all. Seems like the IIFYM crowd in particular understand that macros are different, or why bother setting them in a particular way or meeting them.
In fact, I would argue that much advice on MFP is too focused on macros, as if humans reacted the same to carbs or fat always and in all respects, and as if a fat were a fat and a carb a carb, when there are many differences in terms of nutrition and satiety between different kinds of fats and carbs and proteins, at least for some of us.
I like protein powder on occasion, but for me a protein shake would simply not be as satiating as a piece of chicken (even with the same macros), even though protein is generally satiating. Similarly, I find some carbs pretty satiating and some not at all.
Human differences.I always go back the analogy of food and money. When you only have so much to spend, you choose not to buy expensive things because that would hurt your long-term goals. This is a healthy aversion, not a crazy one. Just because you COULD buy something expensive doesn't mean you ever should just for the heck of it. And thus the same goes for food. It's OK to cultivate a sense for one's self that certain food just are bad for long-term goals without providing substantive happiness, and being able to lose weight and maintain is about finding out which bad habits you need to get rid of, sometimes cold turkey.
Sure, if that's what works for you. I find it more helpful to think of some foods as generally not meeting my goals on a particular day without thinking of them as "bad habits" or something to label and avoid always.
For example, Chicago-style pizza rarely meets my goals, but on occasion I may choose to fit it in and appreciate it thoroughly.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
kshama2001 wrote: »
So yes, the "100 calories of honey buns is equal to 100 calories of black beans" type of argument is indeed sadly prevalent here.
Yes, I would agree. Its sad that a forum about finally getting healthy is missing a key ingredient to actually being healthy. For every one person who argues the pros of eating a healthy balanced diet there are ten others who can't see past the CICO. I say they should both go hand in hand but often times all anyone ever cares about is meeting a calorie goal. Although you can tell by someone's food diary which side of that argument they are on. Some people are simply here for the weight loss... everyone has different goals. Its a free country and people should eat what ever makes them feel good.0 -
You mentioned boredom as a trigger. Planning my meals ahead of time really helped me on several levels. First it made me invest my time in researching different nutritional theories and then planning one for myself. As a result it cut down on "down-time". Secondly, it helped me at meal times as my meals were already planned so it made it less likely that I would need to quickly reach for an impulse item. And finally, it has made a difference because my health has improved greatly ( and I continue to lose weight ). Wishing you the best.0
-
There can be lots of logical reasons for intense hunger. I guess we would need to know more about the OPs diet and exercise. If she is an athlete, doing lots of cardio she could have depleted glycogen and need to eat some carbs. It could be low blood sugar if it is a late afternoon thing. I crash in the late afternoons and generally have tea after work.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeeJayShank wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »KatsuNinja wrote: »TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »There are no good or bad foods. Only eating the right amount of calories.
I'd have to strongly disagree. You can have a small chocolate bar, or a generous bowl of steamed veggies and dahl - same amount of calories, but I bet I know which one will send you lurking in the cupboards 30min later!
The type of food that you eat makes a massive difference. Don't deny yourself food and make yourself miserable - instead, try snacking on low carb/higher protein things, do a little but of research, it's what's going to get you there in the long run.
Absolutely
Only on MFP have is seen people attempt to argue that a honey bun and bowl of black beans are equal foods when the calorie count is equal.
Agree. Foods can be equal calorie and have vastly different health and satiety profiles. While it's true that you could lose weight eating only twinkies, I'd like to see someone try. I'm guessing they would be walking around hungry all day.
After the useful why-you-should-weigh-your-food video, this is the most frequently posted link I've seen on the General boards: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
So yes, the "100 calories of honey buns is equal to 100 calories of black beans" type of argument is indeed sadly prevalent here.
That's not what the Twinkie diet professor is posted to say.
It's always made clear in those threads that no one is saying that Twinkies are just like chicken breast or whatever. In fact, I've never seen one of those threads where people didn't repeatedly say "what you eat matters for nutrition and satiety." What is said is that all else held equal, you will lose weight based on the calories you eat, and not anything else. Also, I disagree that the Twinkie diet link is all that common--it seems to me that most often people on the moderate side or the "no bad foods" side say "you can fit in whatever you want in moderation, so long as you stick to your calories" and someone opposed to that idea brings up the ridiculous strawman "what if you want to eat only donuts." Obviously, no one normal wants to eat only donuts.
I heard a podcast with the Twinkie prof about what he was trying to accomplish--it was simply an illustration for a class--and he was kind of interesting. No one said nutrition doesn't matter or anything of the sort.
I find it really frustrating that people claim to think that the discussion is about foods not having any differences, because that to me is so obviously never said--I think it's usually an intentional distortion of what is said.
I'm on the "no need to eliminate foods you like" side and would disagree that it's somehow anti-nutrition to occasionally eat some chocolate or whatever (and I like to include ice cream in my diet and pizza occasionally), but I know a lot about nutrition and care about it and have never once said that foods are identical or that eating veggies doesn't matter.
I'm in the moderation camp myself.
I'd be happy to ping you about the posts that give advice along the line of "All you have to do is eat at a deficit" and leave it at that. I saw two of that in the first page of a thread the other day but cannot remember which it was.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »DeeJayShank wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »KatsuNinja wrote: »TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »There are no good or bad foods. Only eating the right amount of calories.
I'd have to strongly disagree. You can have a small chocolate bar, or a generous bowl of steamed veggies and dahl - same amount of calories, but I bet I know which one will send you lurking in the cupboards 30min later!
The type of food that you eat makes a massive difference. Don't deny yourself food and make yourself miserable - instead, try snacking on low carb/higher protein things, do a little but of research, it's what's going to get you there in the long run.
Absolutely
Only on MFP have is seen people attempt to argue that a honey bun and bowl of black beans are equal foods when the calorie count is equal.
Agree. Foods can be equal calorie and have vastly different health and satiety profiles. While it's true that you could lose weight eating only twinkies, I'd like to see someone try. I'm guessing they would be walking around hungry all day.
After the useful why-you-should-weigh-your-food video, this is the most frequently posted link I've seen on the General boards: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
So yes, the "100 calories of honey buns is equal to 100 calories of black beans" type of argument is indeed sadly prevalent here.
That's not what the Twinkie diet professor is posted to say.
It's always made clear in those threads that no one is saying that Twinkies are just like chicken breast or whatever. In fact, I've never seen one of those threads where people didn't repeatedly say "what you eat matters for nutrition and satiety." What is said is that all else held equal, you will lose weight based on the calories you eat, and not anything else. Also, I disagree that the Twinkie diet link is all that common--it seems to me that most often people on the moderate side or the "no bad foods" side say "you can fit in whatever you want in moderation, so long as you stick to your calories" and someone opposed to that idea brings up the ridiculous strawman "what if you want to eat only donuts." Obviously, no one normal wants to eat only donuts.
I heard a podcast with the Twinkie prof about what he was trying to accomplish--it was simply an illustration for a class--and he was kind of interesting. No one said nutrition doesn't matter or anything of the sort.
I find it really frustrating that people claim to think that the discussion is about foods not having any differences, because that to me is so obviously never said--I think it's usually an intentional distortion of what is said.
I'm on the "no need to eliminate foods you like" side and would disagree that it's somehow anti-nutrition to occasionally eat some chocolate or whatever (and I like to include ice cream in my diet and pizza occasionally), but I know a lot about nutrition and care about it and have never once said that foods are identical or that eating veggies doesn't matter.
I'm in the moderation camp myself.
I'd be happy to ping you about the posts that give advice along the line of "All you have to do is eat at a deficit" and leave it at that. I saw two of that in the first page of a thread the other day but cannot remember which it was.
Sure, ping me.
But I think you are misinterpreting if you think someone saying "all you have to do is eat at a deficit" is saying that there are no differences between foods or that what you eat doesn't matter for any purpose.
I tend to give the explanation about satiety and nutrition, but don't push it beyond that, since I think people already KNOW what's healthy and will figure out what satisfies them if they cut their calories and approach it sensibly. That there are people who simply aren't interested in nutrition or have decided they hate all veggies really isn't my business, if they are adults, and similarly, although I know what makes me more or less hungry I can't assume that's the same for everyone, and not everyone struggles with hunger anyway. So it bothers me when people act as if others are idiots and have to be told not to eat brownies 24/7 or whatever.
Mostly I think the endless discussion about this is people talking past each other and all but the extremes pretty much give the same advice on how to eat and have the same ideas. Some just seem to assume that unless others are scared straight (i.e., told that they won't lose weight) that they will eat only donuts, whereas the rest of us think it's important to be open about the fact that the reason to eat a good diet isn't that you can't lose on a non nutritious diet, but that it's not healthy and for many of us will result in feeling bad or not being able to stick to the calorie goal.
I've seen plenty of people gradually adjust their diets to more nutrition-focused ones by focusing on calories first, so I don't understand why "calories are what matters" gets interpreted as "a donut=a carrot," which no one ever says.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions