Abstain from problem foods or indulge for weight loss?
Options
Replies
-
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.
But that's the basis of advising or any discussions in a forum. LOL. There'll be no discussion if only things working for everyone are admissible.
0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »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.
But that's the basis of advising or any discussions in a forum. LOL. There'll be no discussion if only things working for everyone are admissible.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that something has to work for everyone in order for it to be discussed. I'm saying that someone saying that because a particular food is a problem for them that others should avoid it doesn't make sense to me.
If someone asked for strategies for night hunger, I might suggest they try saving some calories for the end of the day because that has worked well for me. But it would be a whole different thing if I said *everyone* should save calories for the end of the day.
I know that it's hard for me to stop eating chips and salsa. But other people have no problem saying no to it. Chips and salsa aren't a universal problem food. They're an issue for me. We're all individuals and discussions of "problem foods" should reflect that. I don't believe in universal "problem foods" and I don't think there are foods that everyone has to avoid (barring the obvious like spoiled food or food that has been contaminated somehow).0 -
karmelpopcorn wrote: »I think you have to break with your emotional attachment and anxiety towards eating for either of those strategies to be successful.
Like I said upthread, telling others how they feel and should live their lives based on own experiences and preferences isn't cool.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »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.
But that's the basis of advising or any discussions in a forum. LOL. There'll be no discussion if only things working for everyone are admissible.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that something has to work for everyone in order for it to be discussed. I'm saying that someone saying that because a particular food is a problem for them that others should avoid it doesn't make sense to me.
Are we really talking about different things?
I often see someone says she has headache. Other people advice to cut out sodas, caffeine or sugar (because it works for them).
0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »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.
But that's the basis of advising or any discussions in a forum. LOL. There'll be no discussion if only things working for everyone are admissible.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that something has to work for everyone in order for it to be discussed. I'm saying that someone saying that because a particular food is a problem for them that others should avoid it doesn't make sense to me.
Are we really talking about different things?
I often see someone says she has headache. Other people advice to cut out sodas, caffeine or sugar (because it works for them).
I don't see an issue with that. What I wouldn't understand is someone saying that everyone should cut out sodas (or caffeine or sugar) because it helps some people with their headache. If someone doesn't have headaches, why should they need to cut out soda because it helped someone else's headaches?
Why should someone else consider chips and salsa a problem food just because it might be for me?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »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.
But that's the basis of advising or any discussions in a forum. LOL. There'll be no discussion if only things working for everyone are admissible.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that something has to work for everyone in order for it to be discussed. I'm saying that someone saying that because a particular food is a problem for them that others should avoid it doesn't make sense to me.
Are we really talking about different things?
I often see someone says she has headache. Other people advice to cut out sodas, caffeine or sugar (because it works for them).
I don't see an issue with that. What I wouldn't understand is someone saying that everyone should cut out sodas (or caffeine or sugar) because it helps some people with their headache. If someone doesn't have headaches, why should they need to cut out soda because it helped someone else's headaches?
Why should someone else consider chips and salsa a problem food just because it might be for me?
Now I really think we're talking about two different things.
I rarely (actually can't remember) see any advice post written without a context, ie blanket, like you describe. Almost all the posts I see come with a context, usually based on their own experience.
0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »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.
But that's the basis of advising or any discussions in a forum. LOL. There'll be no discussion if only things working for everyone are admissible.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that something has to work for everyone in order for it to be discussed. I'm saying that someone saying that because a particular food is a problem for them that others should avoid it doesn't make sense to me.
Are we really talking about different things?
I often see someone says she has headache. Other people advice to cut out sodas, caffeine or sugar (because it works for them).
I don't see an issue with that. What I wouldn't understand is someone saying that everyone should cut out sodas (or caffeine or sugar) because it helps some people with their headache. If someone doesn't have headaches, why should they need to cut out soda because it helped someone else's headaches?
Why should someone else consider chips and salsa a problem food just because it might be for me?
Now I really think we're talking about two different things.
I rarely (actually can't remember) see any advice post written without a context, ie blanket, like you describe. Almost all the posts I see come with a context, usually based on their own experience.
I'm not sure how long you've been around, but I've seen multiple posts saying that all people need to avoid certain types of foods or that there is only one way to approach the question in the OP.0 -
I will eat almost anything occasionally but have a tendency to avoid high carb and sugars since it spikes my blood sugars. I'm diabetic.0
-
I do better when I don't completely abstain from foods I like. But I do have a few foods (ice cream and oreos) that I can't keep in the house because I have trouble eating them in moderation. So now I might go out for ice cream occasionally or if I want oreos I will buy the individual package that come with 4 or 6 cookies. I sometimes do that with nutter butters too. That way I can have a little but not be too tempted to go over. But for most everything I find that moderation works better for me. If I tell myself I can't have something then I crave it even more.0
-
my problem treat food is cookies. i have discovered that I don't enjoy eating just one or two. no matter how slowly and attentively I savor them, the joy in it for me has always been eating a lot of them. One or two just makes the craving worse, so I choose not to have them over moderation. For me, at least on a psychological level, having a limited amount is more torturous than abstaining altogether. I binged last week - tried to have a cookie and ate the whole bag of 12 at 200 calories each. Tried to leave just one in the bag to prove to myself I could do it, but nope. Every person is different - you have to do what works for you. If you have a little bit of "treat" foods and put the fork down, then go for it. If you can't, then you can't. I think too, it has to do with how much self-control you have to expend in other parts of your life. I have to drive myself constantly forward at work and that doesn't leave a lot of drive left to manage the food danger zones.0
-
my problem treat food is cookies. i have discovered that I don't enjoy eating just one or two. no matter how slowly and attentively I savor them, the joy in it for me has always been eating a lot of them. One or two just makes the craving worse, so I choose not to have them over moderation. For me, at least on a psychological level, having a limited amount is more torturous than abstaining altogether. I binged last week - tried to have a cookie and ate the whole bag of 12 at 200 calories each. Tried to leave just one in the bag to prove to myself I could do it, but nope. Every person is different - you have to do what works for you. If you have a little bit of "treat" foods and put the fork down, then go for it. If you can't, then you can't. I think too, it has to do with how much self-control you have to expend in other parts of your life. I have to drive myself constantly forward at work and that doesn't leave a lot of drive left to manage the food danger zones.0
-
I think the consensus in the thread is, totally restricting your diet can lead to failure, but avoiding trigger foods can be helpful.0
-
I allow myself to have the things I like and crave, for the most part, just in smaller portions and I plan ahead for them. I've found that as I've been eating healthier, I tend to eat less than I used to when I do indulge. There are some things I just stay away from because I've decided the high calories just aren't worth it ... like queso or nachos. Pizza, on the other hand, is always worth it for me!
I wanted ice cream Tuesday night so I went to Dairy Queen, ordered a small blizzard, ate less than half and just tossed the rest. Wasteful? Yeah, probably, but it took care of my craving and I didn't even eat that much of it. However, if I would have put it in the freezer, I would have finished it last night and that might have started screwing up my week in terms of overall calories.
Everyone is different so you have to find what works for you, though.0 -
Once I really realized that it was either giving up a food I love forever or never having it again, it was much easier to learn moderation.
I mean, it's not 100% perfect and I still eat too much sometimes, but most of the time, I'm fine... and I would never have stuck to it if I knew I could never eat a food I love again (and would binge when I was offered some anyway).0 -
ebtaylor137 wrote: »It seems like there are in general two schools of thought on problem foods, either avoid problem foods completely, or eat whatever you want but stay within your weight loss calorie goals. What has worked for others?
I feel like I've tried both and had issues with either. When I abstain I crumple catastrophically or when I indulge I get a taste and can't stop. What has worked for others?
i eat the foods i love that trigger me, but don't keep buy more than a serving if possible. example - love M&Ms? get a single serving bag, not a big bag or a bunch of small bags. that way, if you have that single serving of M&Ms at night, there isn't another bag there at all, so you can't eat the rest as there is no the rest.0 -
I'm slowly cutting things out of my diet. Cutting them out right away would be way too hard me personally. I have cut out soda and any drinks that are high on sugar and pastas. I like to have one food that I cheat with everyday but still fits into my calorie amount. Slowly I am reducing it so eventually I will just have one trigger food a week.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions