Forbidding foods

Options
amanda4335
amanda4335 Posts: 10 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I personally think there is too much emphasis around what people shouldn't eat in my area... food is not the enemy. Unless eating certain foods severely affects your health, then there shouldn't be any off-limit foods. I am not saying eating limitless supplies of any food; I am saying there is too much emphasis on food as the enemy..this food is bad for you, this food is good for you, and there is no in-between. For example, I like chocolate and coffee, but caffeine makes my anxiety worse, so I am slowly moving away from it, not because it is BAD, but because it severely affects my health. Another example for "bad food" which does not severely affect my health is this: I like muffins, cookies, and donuts... in fact, I ate a pack of cookies and a donut yesterday afternoon and still LOST weight. I do believe in exercise, calorie tracking, and portion control, but I am sick of being judged because I don't ALWAYS eat healthy foods... it isn't like I have a party for one every night and eat as much as I possibly want of whatever I want... I am paying attention to my weight and my health even if I don't always eat the healthiest foods. Honestly, if I wasn't serious about my health, I wouldn't even be here.
«1

Replies

  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    Options
    Well said.
  • amanda4335
    amanda4335 Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Thank you.
  • Michael190lbs
    Michael190lbs Posts: 1,510 Member
    Options
    The problem with people is they think its food when in reality its lack of movement..
  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,750 Member
    Options
    Well, it's both - but not really WHICH foods, it's a question of HOW MUCH.
  • Cheesy567
    Cheesy567 Posts: 1,186 Member
    Options
    I agree. I have many restrictions due to food allergies and intolerances. I find it much easier to keep a list of foods I *can* eat, and refer to that when I'm feeling stuck in a rut.
  • Cheesy567
    Cheesy567 Posts: 1,186 Member
    Options
    Michael190lbs wrote: »
    The problem with people is they think its food when in reality its lack of movement..

    Well, not everyone can move as much as they'd like. For some of us, food is the main way to address weight.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    I think people should forbid foods if they want and it works for them, and not forbid them if they don't want or it doesn't work for them. Different strokes and all that.
  • queenofpuppies
    queenofpuppies Posts: 189 Member
    Options
    I find that it really helps me get my nutritional needs within my calorie limit if I don't waste calories on things like soda...I have the choice to drink a soda and get 240 of my 1200 with no real nutritional value, or use that to eat some greek yogurt and get 40g of protein. Its easier for me to stick within my calorie limits if I trade the sweets for protein and iron. Others might like the reward, or might not care if they get the right amount of iron everyday. Me, I feel like hell if I don't have a well balanced diet. Sure you can lose weight eating anything (CICO), but I think it is harder on my body to lose weight eating only donuts and cookies than eating nutrient dense foods. That being said, I also really like to eat veggies and enjoy them so its really NBD for me to pick a carrot over a cookie...my goals are also more about being healthy than thin...so that matters too
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    I think people should forbid foods if they want and it works for them, and not forbid them if they don't want or it doesn't work for them. Different strokes and all that.

    Yeah, I agree with this.

    For ME, it's better to focus on what I do eat. Focusing on choosing foods that meet my nutritional needs and goals (including things like mostly cooking from whole foods, which again is something that works for me specifically, may not for all) limits my consumption of non nutrient dense foods naturally, such that I end up not even thinking of most of them or having to worry about things like too much sugar, in a way that for me focusing on not eating specific foods would not do. And then if a special occasion comes up I can eat somewhat differently without feeling like I'm breaking any personal rules (which some people might not have an issue with, but I do).

    What bugs me is this idea that not forbidding foods means that one is less concerned with nutrition or eats a less healthful diet overall, as I don't think that's true. I think focusing on making positive choices is, for many, though not all, more likely to actually result in a nutritionally-balanced diet than placing most attention on not eating certain things. After all, one could avoid so-called junk foods and still not eat adequate vegetables or fiber or protein or omega-3, depending on what one fills the calories with.
  • queenofpuppies
    queenofpuppies Posts: 189 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    CICO is about calories. It's not about eating donuts and cookies all the time any more or less than it is about eating carrots and yogurt all the time. A well balanced diet can easily include carrots and cookies.[/quote]

    Yup. that was my point...but for ME keeping the balance usually means skipping the sugary treats...I would rather keep a well balanced diet then have enjoyment from eating just sugar and the expense of nutrients...and for me there really is not room in my calorie goals to add the sugar on top...if I went for the donut I would be cutting those calories from somewhere else. I'd rather get more bang for my buck so to speak.
  • fishshark
    fishshark Posts: 1,886 Member
    Options
    only foods forbidden to me are the ones that make me wana puke my brains out: anything from the ocean and canned spinach are forbidden for sure.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    I think people should forbid foods if they want and it works for them, and not forbid them if they don't want or it doesn't work for them. Different strokes and all that.

    I guess some might consider what I do to be "forbidding" foods, but to me it feels more like "letting go" of foods that aren't helping me meet my health goals.

    It is a semantic argument, I suppose, but people seem to find that "forbidden" foods hold more power over them. I find that once I decide that I don't (not can't) eat a particular food, it ceases to have any power at all.

    Use whatever term and whatever rules work for you. It is completely irrelevant whether it's semantically correct or works for anyone else.
  • fr33sia12
    fr33sia12 Posts: 1,258 Member
    Options
    I don't look at food as the enemy or call it forbidden, but there are certain foods I have cut out of my diet because I don't want to eat them and they have no benefit for me other than a few minutes of pleasure which I can get from other healthier foods. I'm learning to look at food as nourishment as well as enjoyment and I can honestly say I've not been tempted or craved any foods I've cut out of my diet at all.
  • MakePeasNotWar
    MakePeasNotWar Posts: 1,329 Member
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    I think people should forbid foods if they want and it works for them, and not forbid them if they don't want or it doesn't work for them. Different strokes and all that.

    I guess some might consider what I do to be "forbidding" foods, but to me it feels more like "letting go" of foods that aren't helping me meet my health goals.

    It is a semantic argument, I suppose, but people seem to find that "forbidden" foods hold more power over them. I find that once I decide that I don't (not can't) eat a particular food, it ceases to have any power at all.

    Use whatever term and whatever rules work for you. It is completely irrelevant whether it's semantically correct or works for anyone else.


    Sometimes I start responding to a comment, then after 3 or 4 edits it's a completely different post than I started with. My original point was that I agreed with you that it works for some people, but then I got off onto a tangent about why. Sorry if it seemed like I was nitpicking.
  • amanda4335
    amanda4335 Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Forbidding foods doesn't work for me, because I end up eating MORE of those foods which are considered forbidden. That being said, I have learned to more healthfully with a diet which includes more protein, more vegetables and more healthy fats. I don't consider it indulging because I watch HOW MUCH I eat of any particular food. Also, since I am currently looking for work and have no income, the only exercise I can get is walking and lifting bags. *fingers crossed that changes soon* As for if it would really be beneficial for me to go back to the same gym when I am bored and not challenged anymore, well, that is a whole different post.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    Michael190lbs wrote: »
    The problem with people is they think its food when in reality its lack of movement..

    That seems oversimplified. Not everyone can move the way that is needed for weight loss. When I was weight lifting and training for marathons it was much easier to manage my weight. Now with osteoarthritis, autoimmune arthritis and paralysis down one leg from a burst disc, getting enough movement is harder.
    CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
    Well, it's both - but not really WHICH foods, it's a question of HOW MUCH.

    Which foods is part of it too. I developed insulin resistance, partially from steroids needed for autoimmune issues. I need to choose low carb foods or my blood glucose is ridiculous. I have been playing around with increasing carbs a bit (from <20g keto levels). Last night I had a muffin for a bed time snack. My BG was still high (7.2) this morning. If I skip the muffin for fats and protein, or skip a snack entirely, my BG is fine.

    It's how much food, what foods, and movement... also addressing health issues helps too.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    Options
    Did the other thread that said basically the same get deleted? The one that turned into abstinence vs moderation?
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    Options
    amanda4335 wrote: »
    I personally think there is too much emphasis around what people shouldn't eat in my area... food is not the enemy. Unless eating certain foods severely affects your health, then there shouldn't be any off-limit foods. I am not saying eating limitless supplies of any food; I am saying there is too much emphasis on food as the enemy..this food is bad for you, this food is good for you, and there is no in-between. For example, I like chocolate and coffee, but caffeine makes my anxiety worse, so I am slowly moving away from it, not because it is BAD, but because it severely affects my health. Another example for "bad food" which does not severely affect my health is this: I like muffins, cookies, and donuts... in fact, I ate a pack of cookies and a donut yesterday afternoon and still LOST weight. I do believe in exercise, calorie tracking, and portion control, but I am sick of being judged because I don't ALWAYS eat healthy foods... it isn't like I have a party for one every night and eat as much as I possibly want of whatever I want... I am paying attention to my weight and my health even if I don't always eat the healthiest foods. Honestly, if I wasn't serious about my health, I wouldn't even be here.

    I imagine people who need to limit or avoid intakes of certain foods in order to help themselves stay on track, because they too are serious about their health (and avoiding the health consequences that come from excess weight), probably get tired of being judged for having foods that are off-limits for them and treated like they have some kind of disordered thinking about food.

    I find "eyes on your own plate" seems to be the best option no matter side of the conversation one is on.

Categories