Abstain from problem foods or indulge for weight loss?
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I have learned that this is not a respected opinion here; but I think we all need to find plans that work for us.
There ARE some foods that I enjoy so much that life would be very grey if I had to live without them. A really good pizza, pasta, and Cajun food are three such examples. I have done well in integrating these into a successful program.
Then there is a category that includes simple carb/salty snacks. I actually don't think they taste all that great; but when I eat them my food cravings seem to increase and I desire to overeat them. Life is fine without these items; so I decide to put them aside. When I did that I stopped even wanting them.
Doing this helped me a great deal; but according to the MFP gospel, it's not an approach I should ever suggest to someone else.
Anyways, my honest answer is that people succeed using a variety of approaches. I do think that anyone who thinks they have to succeed by switching to a bland diet is making things unnecessarily tough.
Now time to start making my porterhouse steaks with roasted red pepper salsa.....
Avoiding calorie-dense foods that don't taste that great to you and don't add any real enjoyment to your life is actually a pretty common approach here. I'm not sure why you think that isn't respected. I think you would find that most people here who have been successful have adopted that plan.
I made the identical argument in a post I started maybe a month back. As I recall, you were one of the individuals who took issue with it.
In fairness, I did use the term "bad foods". However, my intention was just to say that there are foods that I believe are "bad" for me-but maybe not for you. But once I used the term "bad" people responded as though I was threatening to rip their favorite snack out of their hands. The whole discussion became pretty bizarre....0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I have learned that this is not a respected opinion here; but I think we all need to find plans that work for us.
There ARE some foods that I enjoy so much that life would be very grey if I had to live without them. A really good pizza, pasta, and Cajun food are three such examples. I have done well in integrating these into a successful program.
Then there is a category that includes simple carb/salty snacks. I actually don't think they taste all that great; but when I eat them my food cravings seem to increase and I desire to overeat them. Life is fine without these items; so I decide to put them aside. When I did that I stopped even wanting them.
Doing this helped me a great deal; but according to the MFP gospel, it's not an approach I should ever suggest to someone else.
Anyways, my honest answer is that people succeed using a variety of approaches. I do think that anyone who thinks they have to succeed by switching to a bland diet is making things unnecessarily tough.
Now time to start making my porterhouse steaks with roasted red pepper salsa.....
Avoiding calorie-dense foods that don't taste that great to you and don't add any real enjoyment to your life is actually a pretty common approach here. I'm not sure why you think that isn't respected. I think you would find that most people here who have been successful have adopted that plan.
I made the identical argument in a post I started maybe a month back. As I recall, you were one of the individuals who took issue with it.
In fairness, I did use the term "bad foods". However, my intention was just to say that there are foods that I believe are "bad" for me-but maybe not for you. But once I used the term "bad" people responded as though I was threatening to rip their favorite snack out of their hands. The whole discussion became pretty bizarre....
Because those are different statements, and I remember your thread.
In this thread, you said you didn't enjoy the taste of them. I don't like beets, I don't eat beets. That doesn't mean they are bad for me or anyone. Yes, it's a semantical argument that will never die on these forums.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I have learned that this is not a respected opinion here; but I think we all need to find plans that work for us.
There ARE some foods that I enjoy so much that life would be very grey if I had to live without them. A really good pizza, pasta, and Cajun food are three such examples. I have done well in integrating these into a successful program.
Then there is a category that includes simple carb/salty snacks. I actually don't think they taste all that great; but when I eat them my food cravings seem to increase and I desire to overeat them. Life is fine without these items; so I decide to put them aside. When I did that I stopped even wanting them.
Doing this helped me a great deal; but according to the MFP gospel, it's not an approach I should ever suggest to someone else.
Anyways, my honest answer is that people succeed using a variety of approaches. I do think that anyone who thinks they have to succeed by switching to a bland diet is making things unnecessarily tough.
Now time to start making my porterhouse steaks with roasted red pepper salsa.....
Avoiding calorie-dense foods that don't taste that great to you and don't add any real enjoyment to your life is actually a pretty common approach here. I'm not sure why you think that isn't respected. I think you would find that most people here who have been successful have adopted that plan.
I made the identical argument in a post I started maybe a month back. As I recall, you were one of the individuals who took issue with it.
In fairness, I did use the term "bad foods". However, my intention was just to say that there are foods that I believe are "bad" for me-but maybe not for you. But once I used the term "bad" people responded as though I was threatening to rip their favorite snack out of their hands. The whole discussion became pretty bizarre....
There's an enormous difference between these three positions:
(1) Never eat [insert food here], it's a bad food. This is a claim for everyone.
(2) I don't agree that I can eat what I want within my calories [note: remember what I said above, eating what you want doesn't mean ignoring satiety and nutrition and trade-offs--of course these things determine, in part, what you want]. I have to cut out [insert food here], because it is BAD FOR ME. Telling people calories are what matter is therefore BAD ADVICE. (This is exactly what you asserted in your OP in the other thread and what people, including me, were arguing with.)
(3) In having limited calories, of course tradeoffs have to be made. I find room for foods I really love in my calorie allotment and in the context of an overall balanced and nutritious and satisfying diet, but of course I am mindful and don't waste calories on low nutrient items I don't really care about. This is what you seem to be saying above, and what several others have said and I think everyone would agree with. I didn't eat (American) chips much before dieting, because I don't really like them and I dislike eating out of a greasy bag, but I certainly don't waste calories on them now that my calories are limited. I'd rather save them for the rare fish and chips or some other high cal thing I do love. But of course this doesn't mean I don't eat what I want within my calories or think chips are a "bad food." That would be silly.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I have learned that this is not a respected opinion here; but I think we all need to find plans that work for us.
There ARE some foods that I enjoy so much that life would be very grey if I had to live without them. A really good pizza, pasta, and Cajun food are three such examples. I have done well in integrating these into a successful program.
Then there is a category that includes simple carb/salty snacks. I actually don't think they taste all that great; but when I eat them my food cravings seem to increase and I desire to overeat them. Life is fine without these items; so I decide to put them aside. When I did that I stopped even wanting them.
Doing this helped me a great deal; but according to the MFP gospel, it's not an approach I should ever suggest to someone else.
Anyways, my honest answer is that people succeed using a variety of approaches. I do think that anyone who thinks they have to succeed by switching to a bland diet is making things unnecessarily tough.
Now time to start making my porterhouse steaks with roasted red pepper salsa.....
Avoiding calorie-dense foods that don't taste that great to you and don't add any real enjoyment to your life is actually a pretty common approach here. I'm not sure why you think that isn't respected. I think you would find that most people here who have been successful have adopted that plan.
I made the identical argument in a post I started maybe a month back. As I recall, you were one of the individuals who took issue with it.
In fairness, I did use the term "bad foods". However, my intention was just to say that there are foods that I believe are "bad" for me-but maybe not for you. But once I used the term "bad" people responded as though I was threatening to rip their favorite snack out of their hands. The whole discussion became pretty bizarre....
There's an enormous difference between these three positions:
(1) Never eat [insert food here], it's a bad food. This is a claim for everyone.
(2) I don't agree that I can eat what I want within my calories [note: remember what I said above, eating what you want doesn't mean ignoring satiety and nutrition and trade-offs--of course these things determine, in part, what you want]. I have to cut out [insert food here], because it is BAD FOR ME. Telling people calories are what matter is therefore BAD ADVICE. (This is exactly what you asserted in your OP in the other thread and what people, including me, were arguing with.)
(3) In having limited calories, of course tradeoffs have to be made. I find room for foods I really love in my calorie allotment and in the context of an overall balanced and nutritious and satisfying diet, but of course I am mindful and don't waste calories on low nutrient items I don't really care about. This is what you seem to be saying above, and what several others have said and I think everyone would agree with. I didn't eat (American) chips much before dieting, because I don't really like them and I dislike eating out of a greasy bag, but I certainly don't waste calories on them now that my calories are limited. I'd rather save them for the rare fish and chips or some other high cal thing I do love. But of course this doesn't mean I don't eat what I want within my calories or think chips are a "bad food." That would be silly.
Calories are all that matter when it comes to weight loss. I would never argue against that.0 -
Before I started MFP, I had a strong determination that I would not be changing my habits if it meant never having the things I like ever again. I was more than happy to continue slowly gaining weight if it meant I didn't have to give up pizza/icecream/chips etc. forever.
Then, one day, I learnt about calorie counting. It was no longer about "eating clean" which for me, was about eating nothing you like to ensure you lost weight. Calorie counting made it so black and white - this is the goal and you need to meet it. No "superfoods" or "personal trainers hate this one magic tip" etc.
So I still eat whatever I want. I just eat to my calorie goal. AND if I do have a day (or couple of days) where I blow my calorie budget for whatever reason, it's very simple to get back on track as I know how easily the "damage" can be negated.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I have learned that this is not a respected opinion here; but I think we all need to find plans that work for us.
There ARE some foods that I enjoy so much that life would be very grey if I had to live without them. A really good pizza, pasta, and Cajun food are three such examples. I have done well in integrating these into a successful program.
Then there is a category that includes simple carb/salty snacks. I actually don't think they taste all that great; but when I eat them my food cravings seem to increase and I desire to overeat them. Life is fine without these items; so I decide to put them aside. When I did that I stopped even wanting them.
Doing this helped me a great deal; but according to the MFP gospel, it's not an approach I should ever suggest to someone else.
Anyways, my honest answer is that people succeed using a variety of approaches. I do think that anyone who thinks they have to succeed by switching to a bland diet is making things unnecessarily tough.
Now time to start making my porterhouse steaks with roasted red pepper salsa.....
Avoiding calorie-dense foods that don't taste that great to you and don't add any real enjoyment to your life is actually a pretty common approach here. I'm not sure why you think that isn't respected. I think you would find that most people here who have been successful have adopted that plan.
I made the identical argument in a post I started maybe a month back. As I recall, you were one of the individuals who took issue with it.
In fairness, I did use the term "bad foods". However, my intention was just to say that there are foods that I believe are "bad" for me-but maybe not for you. But once I used the term "bad" people responded as though I was threatening to rip their favorite snack out of their hands. The whole discussion became pretty bizarre....
There's an enormous difference between these three positions:
(1) Never eat [insert food here], it's a bad food. This is a claim for everyone.
(2) I don't agree that I can eat what I want within my calories [note: remember what I said above, eating what you want doesn't mean ignoring satiety and nutrition and trade-offs--of course these things determine, in part, what you want]. I have to cut out [insert food here], because it is BAD FOR ME. Telling people calories are what matter is therefore BAD ADVICE. (This is exactly what you asserted in your OP in the other thread and what people, including me, were arguing with.)
(3) In having limited calories, of course tradeoffs have to be made. I find room for foods I really love in my calorie allotment and in the context of an overall balanced and nutritious and satisfying diet, but of course I am mindful and don't waste calories on low nutrient items I don't really care about. This is what you seem to be saying above, and what several others have said and I think everyone would agree with. I didn't eat (American) chips much before dieting, because I don't really like them and I dislike eating out of a greasy bag, but I certainly don't waste calories on them now that my calories are limited. I'd rather save them for the rare fish and chips or some other high cal thing I do love. But of course this doesn't mean I don't eat what I want within my calories or think chips are a "bad food." That would be silly.
Calories are all that matter when it comes to weight loss. I would never argue against that.
As I recall the other thread, it started as a scold of people who said "calories are all that matter," because we didn't consider that people might sensibly reduce or eliminate foods for individual reasons (because they were "bad for them") having to do with trigger responses or satiety.
As I and others argued, that doesn't make it bad advice, because of course within "eat what you want within your calorie" any sensible adult will be making judgments about nutrition, satiety, and tradeoffs (are those M&Ms worth it if I can't have cheese or skin on my chicken? IMO, no way, but that doesn't mean I'm cutting out M7Ms--they just don't typically make the cut).
It was probably a bunch of misunderstandings, as I tried to explain in that thread, but it did start out scoldy and plus lots of people hate the "bad food" thing. That does not mean that anyone thinks people shouldn't make judgments about what foods are worth it for them.0 -
I fall down if I have trigger foods in the house0
-
I find it easier to stick to my calorie range if I keep the "junk" out of the house. By junk I mean Doritos and gummy bears. I find it very hard to moderate those things. When I'm really craving them, I just plan for the splurge to make it fit or accept that I am going over my calories that day.
What I find worse is those days that we eat out or have friends over or go to friends houses... Those are my worst calorie days because I can't judge the calories correctly so I just say screw it and eat whatever. I still log it as best as I can, but it means I'm wayyy over.
0 -
I still eat all my problem foods. I want to be able to control myself, because I'm here for the long run, and I can't receive a bunch of chocolate muffins and just put on 5kgs in a week! There's food I enjoy everywhere. Need to enjoy it responsibly, is all.0
-
I try to avoid foods that don't fit in my plan unless it's "rare and appropriate," like if I'm seeing a friend I haven't in ages or there's another major event going on. The thought process is that "You know what? I can have this literally any time. It's not a big deal to go to the store for it later. I don't need this right now."0
-
Include with good sense.
Yes, some things I'm better off just not starting. Mostly avoid or build in some "guard rails"...single serve package, eat at a restaurant, etc. and (usually) fit them into the daily calories.
Other things I can just have a little and be fine. Fit them into the daily calories.
And still others that are rare or special in some way. To hell with it, you only live once.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I have learned that this is not a respected opinion here; but I think we all need to find plans that work for us.
There ARE some foods that I enjoy so much that life would be very grey if I had to live without them. A really good pizza, pasta, and Cajun food are three such examples. I have done well in integrating these into a successful program.
Then there is a category that includes simple carb/salty snacks. I actually don't think they taste all that great; but when I eat them my food cravings seem to increase and I desire to overeat them. Life is fine without these items; so I decide to put them aside. When I did that I stopped even wanting them.
Doing this helped me a great deal; but according to the MFP gospel, it's not an approach I should ever suggest to someone else.
Anyways, my honest answer is that people succeed using a variety of approaches. I do think that anyone who thinks they have to succeed by switching to a bland diet is making things unnecessarily tough.
Now time to start making my porterhouse steaks with roasted red pepper salsa.....
Avoiding calorie-dense foods that don't taste that great to you and don't add any real enjoyment to your life is actually a pretty common approach here. I'm not sure why you think that isn't respected. I think you would find that most people here who have been successful have adopted that plan.
I made the identical argument in a post I started maybe a month back. As I recall, you were one of the individuals who took issue with it.
In fairness, I did use the term "bad foods". However, my intention was just to say that there are foods that I believe are "bad" for me-but maybe not for you. But once I used the term "bad" people responded as though I was threatening to rip their favorite snack out of their hands. The whole discussion became pretty bizarre....
Saying that there are "bad foods" that individuals should avoid, even if they want them, is a whole other argument. I have no issue with someone avoiding foods that they don't enjoy and don't add anything to their life. I can't imagine anyone objecting to that.0 -
I'm in a bit of a similar dilemma. Whilst I'm being successful on my diet I have very little desire to eat any junk, and even if I do crave something I'm able to just have a bit and work it into my daily allowance fine.
However, once I've blown my diet (usually triggered by a social occasion) I'm absolutely terrible. I can't moderate my intake at all and just end up splurging until a week later usually when I build up my motivation to recommit to my daily goal.
0 -
noobletmcnugget wrote: »I'm in a bit of a similar dilemma. Whilst I'm being successful on my diet I have very little desire to eat any junk, and even if I do crave something I'm able to just have a bit and work it into my daily allowance fine.
However, once I've blown my diet (usually triggered by a social occasion) I'm absolutely terrible. I can't moderate my intake at all and just end up splurging until a week later usually when I build up my motivation to recommit to my daily goal.
I think this is a common side effect to seeing foods as bad or good rather than focusing on how they fit in to the overall diet. (Also to all or nothing thinking.) Getting over that is what allowed me to be successful in losing the weight this time, vs. a couple of years before of constant starting, "blowing it" (i.e., not being perfect), and then deciding it clearly wasn't the right time so I might as well eat with abandon 'til I was ready to start again.0 -
I have struggled so much with cravings, and realised at last that there are some foods that are not worth the calories (the amount I can fit into my budget isn't something I want); these foods don't satisfy me in any way, I don't love them, I like the taste maybe, but I basically just crave them, and want more after I have some. I don't keep trigger food in the house, but I don't deny myself; I will eat anything on occasion, as long as it is a social occasion, and occasional
I eat what I want, but the criteria for what I want has changed somewhat - I aim to satisfy my tastebuds and at the same time take care of my health. I cook/assemble delicious meals that satisfy and nourish.
To help with my resolution to only eat at meals, I shop according to list, written according to meal plan. Don't buy anything that isn't meant for a planned meal. If it's not on the list, I don't buy it. As a rule. I will diverge on occasion, and that's fine. I just stay away from my main triggers. None of which I really miss
I don't miss the constant cravings either 
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I have learned that this is not a respected opinion here; but I think we all need to find plans that work for us.
There ARE some foods that I enjoy so much that life would be very grey if I had to live without them. A really good pizza, pasta, and Cajun food are three such examples. I have done well in integrating these into a successful program.
Then there is a category that includes simple carb/salty snacks. I actually don't think they taste all that great; but when I eat them my food cravings seem to increase and I desire to overeat them. Life is fine without these items; so I decide to put them aside. When I did that I stopped even wanting them.
Doing this helped me a great deal; but according to the MFP gospel, it's not an approach I should ever suggest to someone else.
Anyways, my honest answer is that people succeed using a variety of approaches. I do think that anyone who thinks they have to succeed by switching to a bland diet is making things unnecessarily tough.
Now time to start making my porterhouse steaks with roasted red pepper salsa.....
Avoiding calorie-dense foods that don't taste that great to you and don't add any real enjoyment to your life is actually a pretty common approach here. I'm not sure why you think that isn't respected. I think you would find that most people here who have been successful have adopted that plan.
I made the identical argument in a post I started maybe a month back. As I recall, you were one of the individuals who took issue with it.
In fairness, I did use the term "bad foods". However, my intention was just to say that there are foods that I believe are "bad" for me-but maybe not for you. But once I used the term "bad" people responded as though I was threatening to rip their favorite snack out of their hands. The whole discussion became pretty bizarre....
Saying that there are "bad foods" that individuals should avoid, even if they want them, is a whole other argument. I have no issue with someone avoiding foods that they don't enjoy and don't add anything to their life. I can't imagine anyone objecting to that.
I think the meaning of "enjoyment" is what the "bad food" disagreement is all about. What is the best way to describe foods that we like the taste of, very much, but the effect, not at all? Want, but don't want? I think "problem food", as implied in this thread, is getting close.0 -
I'm not sure there are any foods in that category for me. There are foods I want to overeat (naan, if I have curry to dip it in, good tortilla chips with house-made guacamole, are a couple of examples). So I eat those rarely so I can overeat if I wish. But I wouldn't say I dislike the effect on me or consider them bad foods. They are just foods that (often due to the context -- they tend to be freely available on the table) are harder for me to moderate.0
-
I try to stick to my macros but am fairly loose on them as long as I hit my protein, stay under my calories even on "cheat" days usually.. pretty much work little treats in when I want them.0
-
kommodevaran wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I have learned that this is not a respected opinion here; but I think we all need to find plans that work for us.
There ARE some foods that I enjoy so much that life would be very grey if I had to live without them. A really good pizza, pasta, and Cajun food are three such examples. I have done well in integrating these into a successful program.
Then there is a category that includes simple carb/salty snacks. I actually don't think they taste all that great; but when I eat them my food cravings seem to increase and I desire to overeat them. Life is fine without these items; so I decide to put them aside. When I did that I stopped even wanting them.
Doing this helped me a great deal; but according to the MFP gospel, it's not an approach I should ever suggest to someone else.
Anyways, my honest answer is that people succeed using a variety of approaches. I do think that anyone who thinks they have to succeed by switching to a bland diet is making things unnecessarily tough.
Now time to start making my porterhouse steaks with roasted red pepper salsa.....
Avoiding calorie-dense foods that don't taste that great to you and don't add any real enjoyment to your life is actually a pretty common approach here. I'm not sure why you think that isn't respected. I think you would find that most people here who have been successful have adopted that plan.
I made the identical argument in a post I started maybe a month back. As I recall, you were one of the individuals who took issue with it.
In fairness, I did use the term "bad foods". However, my intention was just to say that there are foods that I believe are "bad" for me-but maybe not for you. But once I used the term "bad" people responded as though I was threatening to rip their favorite snack out of their hands. The whole discussion became pretty bizarre....
Saying that there are "bad foods" that individuals should avoid, even if they want them, is a whole other argument. I have no issue with someone avoiding foods that they don't enjoy and don't add anything to their life. I can't imagine anyone objecting to that.
I think the meaning of "enjoyment" is what the "bad food" disagreement is all about. What is the best way to describe foods that we like the taste of, very much, but the effect, not at all? Want, but don't want? I think "problem food", as implied in this thread, is getting close.
I don't see any issue with defining a "problem food" on an individual level. I have some that I've defined for myself (I know I have to be very aware when I choose to eat them so that I don't eat too much). I think the potential problems happen when someone decides that their "problem food" is a problem for everyone or that the only way for anyone to handle a "problem food" is to eliminate it.
0 -
I try to fit the things I love into my day and I always allow myself dessert and my netflix and chill snacks but I've learned a few things I need to keep out of the house to avoid my binging. Nutella, being one, pizza being another I have to plan for my pizza days and the big one is chocolate chip cookie dough ... I DEVOUR chocolate chip cookie dough most of it never gets made into an actual cookie. Its a problem lol0
-
I do a little bit of both, I suppose.
I don't have anything on a 'do not eat' list, but I'll go through phases where suddenly I want to eat a lot of some food. It's not always sweets or snacky things, either. At the moment I have a love for sauteed mushrooms and I've discovered sorrel and am throwing it in everything it seems like. Anyway, usually, eating a smaller amount more often usually does the trick until the craving fades, but sometimes not.
Sometimes I find myself overeating whatever it is every time I buy it. In that case, I'll avoid it for a week or so until I'm not wanting it all the time. Then I'll buy it if I feel like it again. It seems to be mostly a matter of breaking a habit for me.0 -
noobletmcnugget wrote: »I'm in a bit of a similar dilemma. Whilst I'm being successful on my diet I have very little desire to eat any junk, and even if I do crave something I'm able to just have a bit and work it into my daily allowance fine.
However, once I've blown my diet (usually triggered by a social occasion) I'm absolutely terrible. I can't moderate my intake at all and just end up splurging until a week later usually when I build up my motivation to recommit to my daily goal.
This is a problem that is usually connected to an all or nothing mentality...it is completely unreasonable and unrealistic to think you're going to be 100% on all of the time. There are always going to be birthdays and holidays and other special occasions for which celebration is in order...and it's pretty normal to indulge when celebrating something...and it's perfectly reasonable and ok to do so. Your health, wellness, fitness, etc aren't predicated on these occasions, these things are predicated on what you're doing most of the time.
Celebrating this or that doesn't mean you failed and have to start over...lose that mentality and realize that there are things in this life worth celebrating and that they should have no bearing on what you're doing otherwise.
It's completely unrealistic and unreasonable to think that you're never going to miss a workout or you're never going to over indulge, etc...it's just not. Adjust your expectations of your lifestyle to be in line with reality.0 -
Sugary foods I can't stop eating, so I avoid except for major holidays. They also fire up my appetite so it makes me most irritable to eat them even in moderation. I try to avoid.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not sure there are any foods in that category for me. There are foods I want to overeat (naan, if I have curry to dip it in, good tortilla chips with house-made guacamole, are a couple of examples). So I eat those rarely so I can overeat if I wish. But I wouldn't say I dislike the effect on me or consider them bad foods. They are just foods that (often due to the context -- they tend to be freely available on the table) are harder for me to moderate.
The overeating can be a clue. But there are degrees and types of overeating. You can eat a little more than you planned, or blow your calorie budget for the week in one sitting. Some people overeat certain foods until uncomfortably stuffed. For me, certain foods can be eaten in excess without making me feel full or sick, but I become lethargic and want more. I call those "trigger foods".0 -
Personally I'm still working on this question. I've gone back and forth. I tend to overindulge when I have pre-packaged snacks in my house (chips, cookies, ice cream, etc). I'd really like to reach a point where I can just measure out a portion, and leave it at that, and I have, at times, been able to do that, but I'm not consistent with it yet. I'm a strong believer in moderation, but for now I'm going to be not buying any of those snacky items for my house. It's much easier to eat them in moderation if I can only get them at work or a family member's house. I figure it will help me find my personal golden ratio of satiating macros too if I have to focus more on whole foods and eating more fruit/veg.
Right with you on not being consistent.
There are some foods that I won't have in the house because trying to moderate is torture.
I really like single servings. It is more expensive sometimes but worth it. I have been buying snack grab Doritos. I split with my husband. It's a treat and don't have to white knuckle trying not to eat the rest of the bag.
Some foods are in the "not right now" column. I also have a "not worth the calories" column. When eating at a deficit it can be difficult to fit some foods in. While you don't want to deprive yourself all the time, you don't want to go over your calorie goal all the time either.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I have learned that this is not a respected opinion here; but I think we all need to find plans that work for us.
There ARE some foods that I enjoy so much that life would be very grey if I had to live without them. A really good pizza, pasta, and Cajun food are three such examples. I have done well in integrating these into a successful program.
Then there is a category that includes simple carb/salty snacks. I actually don't think they taste all that great; but when I eat them my food cravings seem to increase and I desire to overeat them. Life is fine without these items; so I decide to put them aside. When I did that I stopped even wanting them.
Doing this helped me a great deal; but according to the MFP gospel, it's not an approach I should ever suggest to someone else.
Anyways, my honest answer is that people succeed using a variety of approaches. I do think that anyone who thinks they have to succeed by switching to a bland diet is making things unnecessarily tough.
Now time to start making my porterhouse steaks with roasted red pepper salsa.....
Avoiding calorie-dense foods that don't taste that great to you and don't add any real enjoyment to your life is actually a pretty common approach here. I'm not sure why you think that isn't respected. I think you would find that most people here who have been successful have adopted that plan.
I made the identical argument in a post I started maybe a month back. As I recall, you were one of the individuals who took issue with it.
In fairness, I did use the term "bad foods". However, my intention was just to say that there are foods that I believe are "bad" for me-but maybe not for you. But once I used the term "bad" people responded as though I was threatening to rip their favorite snack out of their hands. The whole discussion became pretty bizarre....
Saying that there are "bad foods" that individuals should avoid, even if they want them, is a whole other argument. I have no issue with someone avoiding foods that they don't enjoy and don't add anything to their life. I can't imagine anyone objecting to that.
I think the meaning of "enjoyment" is what the "bad food" disagreement is all about. What is the best way to describe foods that we like the taste of, very much, but the effect, not at all? Want, but don't want? I think "problem food", as implied in this thread, is getting close.
I don't see any issue with defining a "problem food" on an individual level. I have some that I've defined for myself (I know I have to be very aware when I choose to eat them so that I don't eat too much). I think the potential problems happen when someone decides that their "problem food" is a problem for everyone or that the only way for anyone to handle a "problem food" is to eliminate it.
Telling others how they feel and should live their lives based on own experiences and preferences isn't cool
I think sometimes we just use "shorthand" and forget to add the YMMV disclaimer; other times we are convinced that our way is the right way 
Oh, and sometimes it's hard to tell the difference from a post, and maybe the poster him/herself isn't really sure which attitude they have at the moment? 0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm not sure there are any foods in that category for me. There are foods I want to overeat (naan, if I have curry to dip it in, good tortilla chips with house-made guacamole, are a couple of examples). So I eat those rarely so I can overeat if I wish. But I wouldn't say I dislike the effect on me or consider them bad foods. They are just foods that (often due to the context -- they tend to be freely available on the table) are harder for me to moderate.
The overeating can be a clue. But there are degrees and types of overeating. You can eat a little more than you planned, or blow your calorie budget for the week in one sitting. Some people overeat certain foods until uncomfortably stuffed. For me, certain foods can be eaten in excess without making me feel full or sick, but I become lethargic and want more. I call those "trigger foods".
I generally can't eat so much that I blow a week's budget. Overdoing on occasion is not something I feel is a terrible thing for me (so long as the food was worth it to me). I usually combine Indian/Mexican with a big workout that day or the following day, though. I also don't think about the foods after we leave the restaurant.0 -
Personally I'm still working on this question. I've gone back and forth. I tend to overindulge when I have pre-packaged snacks in my house (chips, cookies, ice cream, etc). I'd really like to reach a point where I can just measure out a portion, and leave it at that, and I have, at times, been able to do that, but I'm not consistent with it yet. I'm a strong believer in moderation, but for now I'm going to be not buying any of those snacky items for my house. It's much easier to eat them in moderation if I can only get them at work or a family member's house. I figure it will help me find my personal golden ratio of satiating macros too if I have to focus more on whole foods and eating more fruit/veg.
Right with you on not being consistent.
There are some foods that I won't have in the house because trying to moderate is torture.
I really like single servings. It is more expensive sometimes but worth it. I have been buying snack grab Doritos. I split with my husband. It's a treat and don't have to white knuckle trying not to eat the rest of the bag.
Some foods are in the "not right now" column. I also have a "not worth the calories" column. When eating at a deficit it can be difficult to fit some foods in. While you don't want to deprive yourself all the time, you don't want to go over your calorie goal all the time either.
Bingo.
Also, just to be completely open (and hope it might help someone), individual servings do nothing for me personally. I can just as easily grab 5 individually packaged servings of chips as I can sit down with a big bag and eat out of it mindlessly. Actually I recently had that experience. I bought a box of individual packages and thought "oh, I can just have one every couple days or so." Yeah, that didn't happen. On the other hand, I can easily moderate grabbing a single package of pretzels at work from the vending machine.
All that to say, whether you keep your personal "trigger/problem" foods in your house and moderately eat them, avoid them altogether or eat them in moderation outside your home is a very personal thing, and it will take time to find out what works best. I'm 8 months into this, 50 pounds down, and I still don't have it all figured out.
0 -
I will be open too. Single serving means just that. I have tried having those variety packs with small bags of chips. I can blow thru all of them in 15 minutes. Some day I hope to be able to have that stuff around.0
-
I think you have to break with your emotional attachment and anxiety towards eating for either of those strategies to be successful.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
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions