You are not just "weak" or "lazy". Food can be an ADDICTION.
Replies
-
Not a drug. It's hyper palatable and easy to consume. But unlike another drugs, sugar is NEEDED in the body to create glycogen.Puppybear1 wrote: »Sugar is a drug. And just like alcoholics, some people have genetic predispositions for addiction, ie - diabetics. I have been preaching this topic for a week and fending off the shade I get for comparing sugar to drugs, but it IS a drug, or food companies wouldn't put it in practically everything! Kudos to the Enlightened!
If people can't handle not eating it all the time, that's a habitual issue, not a drug addiction issue.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
9 -
Not having control of eating is a habitual issue and not a physical addiction issue. Honestly, if someone asks you over and have nothing but "healthy" food to eat, that'd get old real fast. Same with not being able to go out with that friend to restaurants because they have an issue with food.
My personal opinion as a trainer is that everyone is RESPONSIBLE for themselves. Don't put the onus of an eating issue on friends or family. Learn a behavior that keeps one from overeating. Behaviors can be changed.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 10 -
and let's not forget the other factors involved... remember the girl who is constantly intensely hungry because of a medical condition? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/2020-rare-condition-makes-kids-intensely-hungry-247-25005190
she is gaining weight on 900 calories a day.
She has been so desperate she ate dog food.0 -
...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.3 -
The thread that prompted this involved a woman asking how she could assert her boundaries with her husband who thought she was ungrateful, because he gave her a box of chocolates, her favorite treat, and she ended up eating a lot of them. She was told she should be grateful and thank him and show willpower.jennifer_417 wrote: »...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.
0 -
Many many people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol which cause physical symptoms of withdrawal are able to resist their drug of choice. Please people give them some credit.
5 -
I love it (not) how everybody has to be a martyr these days and how insulting they can be to others, by trying to make comparisons of different situations.
If one loves cookies and fries, this does not mean they have a right to compare themselves to drug addicts and alcoholics, because it mocks their struggles and shows a complete luck of empathy. If one has a husband who offers them a chocolate, this does not make their situation dramatic, and thinking how awful this husband is means they have zero empathy for people in really bad domestic situations.
We all have things we cannot resist, or things we are lazy about, from not having the will power or the desire to make the sacrifices to work hard enough to get a scholarship or save money to get a car to not being able to exercise or resist soda. It is part of being human, it does not give as a right to be so selfish to need to compare ourselves with people with problems we cannot even grasp.
A fat person calling himself a drug addict does not help people sympathise, it makes this person sound selfish and without compassion.
A woman whining how her husband bringing gifts is abusing her, she is not presenting a good excuse about her weight, she is disrespectful of families where there are is real abuse going on.
There is a thing called personal responsibility. Whining and making dramatic statements is not part of this.28 -
Talk to any addict, they are taught that using/not using is their choice, their responsibility no one else's. Addicts are taught in rehab that they are selfish for using, they are basically torn down emotionally, I personally know this from being a family member of an addict many years ago. And unless things have changed since then the addict has sole responsibility for what they chose to do. Please anyone with recent addictions/rehab correct me if I'm wrong and things have changed.
Having said all that, I feel for people who struggle so much so that I would be an enabler if it weren't for alanon helping me.
1 -
I love it (not) how everybody has to be a martyr these days and how insulting they can be to others, by trying to make comparisons of different situations.
If one loves cookies and fries, this does not mean they have a right to compare themselves to drug addicts and alcoholics, because it mocks their struggles and shows a complete luck of empathy. If one has a husband who offers them a chocolate, this does not make their situation dramatic, and thinking how awful this husband is means they have zero empathy for people in really bad domestic situations.
We all have things we cannot resist, or things we are lazy about, from not having the will power or the desire to make the sacrifices to work hard enough to get a scholarship or save money to get a car to not being able to exercise or resist soda. It is part of being human, it does not give as a right to be so selfish to need to compare ourselves with people with problems we cannot even grasp.
A fat person calling himself a drug addict does not help people sympathise, it makes this person sound selfish and without compassion.
A woman whining how her husband bringing gifts is abusing her, she is not presenting a good excuse about her weight, she is disrespectful of families where there are is real abuse going on.
There is a thing called personal responsibility. Whining and making dramatic statements is not part of this.
Awesome post1 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
its still not the same as being dependent on a substance. Not choosing to over eat is not the same as having a dependency on substance.DisruptedMatrix wrote: »and let's not forget the other factors involved... remember the girl who is constantly intensely hungry because of a medical condition? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/2020-rare-condition-makes-kids-intensely-hungry-247-25005190
she is gaining weight on 900 calories a day.
She has been so desperate she ate dog food.
you cant ever bring up rare conditions when they have no bearings on the general public and the general topic of eating. There are many diseases and conditions out there this is a conversation about food being addictive or not. At the end of the day this is a conversation on if food causes the same dependency as substances which it doesn't.
I gained weight because i chose too. I ate the extra chips and cookies because i wanted too not because i was addicted. I ate when i wasnt hungry because i was bored not because i needed to. I ate past the threshold of full because i wanted too not because i was addicted and needed too. Eating is pleasurable.. eating takes up time.. eating is comforting. It is not the same as an addictive substance. it may seem that way because our body will always need nutrients and we will always need to eat. Its another excuse for the choices those make.
edit- if you have never delt with REAL addiction be it you or a loved one it IS laughable when people say things like its the same as a drug.9 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
As I said, I'm a drug addict. I find the claim of "sugar is addictive" when many of the addiction criteria aren't met. Food tastes good. Sweet food tastes better. Doesn't make food or sugar addictive. I use my own behavior to check addiction:
1. Would you break the law to get your fix?
2. Would anything with a similar drug profile work to give you your fix?
You also miss the big point of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Yeah, people eat themselves to death and/or to the point of self-immobilization. Doesn't make sugar addictive.
At one point, I thought I was a food addict. Then I realized, after a lot of self-examination, that my overeating was me covering for other mental and emotional problems in my life. When I dealt with the problems, oh lookie-lookie, my "food addiction" went away.19 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
The thread that prompted this involved a woman asking how she could assert her boundaries with her husband who thought she was ungrateful, because he gave her a box of chocolates, her favorite treat, and she ended up eating a lot of them. She was told she should be grateful and thank him and show willpower.jennifer_417 wrote: »...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.
She should. You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.
The younger generation today is obsessed with the idea of being "triggered" and having the world creating safe spaces for them.
Let me share a story with you.
In 1980, on my way to school, cutting through a patch of woods, I was stranger raped.
For years after that, many things triggered me. Being approached from behind, gas station attendants, the smell of dirt, the sight of woods in tv shows.
It didn't take me too long to realize that the world wasn't going to change to accommodate me and that by expecting it to, I was giving my perpetrator power to continue to vicitimize me. I didn't want to be a perpetual victim. I wanted to be a victor.
It took a long while, but eventually, I got over it.
I'm still not cool with being approached from behind sometimes, or with hands on my neck, but I for damned sure love trees and the smell of dirt now.
Haha sucker, I won.
That woman can conquer over what defeats her and come out the other side a better person.31 -
Your strength of character and ability to self-analyse is impressive @GottaBurnEmAll ..I'm grateful to have you as a friend
I think that society is screwing with psyches in creating "triggers", victimhood, lack of personal responsibility and political correctness as a series of excuses
Then again this is the way of the world and always has been
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them."
(From a sermon preached by Peter the Hermit in A.D. 1274)
'The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers.'
( attributed to SOCRATES )10 -
]The younger generation today is obsessed with the idea of being "triggered" and having the world creating safe spaces for them
I understand this but they can't take the blame all by themselves. surely the older generation around them have helped create this. Over protecting child to protect them from what might happen etc
BTW. When we are saying younger generation what age are we talking out of curiosity1 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »and let's not forget the other factors involved... remember the girl who is constantly intensely hungry because of a medical condition? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/2020-rare-condition-makes-kids-intensely-hungry-247-25005190
she is gaining weight on 900 calories a day.
She has been so desperate she ate dog food.
Not sure what a so-called "bizarre medical mystery" has to do with the topic at hand? <confused>2 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
The thread that prompted this involved a woman asking how she could assert her boundaries with her husband who thought she was ungrateful, because he gave her a box of chocolates, her favorite treat, and she ended up eating a lot of them. She was told she should be grateful and thank him and show willpower.jennifer_417 wrote: »...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.
No, she was mostly told that she needed to communicate with him, because how was he supposed to know the gift would not be appreciated (she also seemed upset about her 90-something year old mother in law baking for her).
Others jumped in and said the husband was a jerk and saboteur and that it was like bringing heroin to a heroin addict which is what started this ridiculous thread of the conversation.
I totally agree that if someone doesn't want food gifts and tells others that (which OP had not), that it is polite and appropriate to respect that.
However, if you find yourself saying that you overeat because someone else made you or the food made you, there's something wrong with your ability to take proper responsibility.
This isn't about moderation vs. abstinence -- I think there are no bad foods, but that there may well be foods that it is better for a particular individual to avoid for a while or not have in her house, etc. (this is more of an issue if people are sharing a house -- I think having "my food" and "your food" can work as it has for me). Obviously bringing food to someone's house not yours against their specific requests or badgering them to eat foods they have expressed desire not to eat is weird and rude and IME doesn't actually happen. If it did I'd stop being friends with those people because they are weird and rude (parents who do this, eh, family sometimes lack boundaries and it takes more work, yeah).
And I happen to agree with BurnEm that if someone gets to 700 lbs there is some kind of compulsive eating or ED going on, and that eating addiction might be the right word. I don't think it's addiction to specific foods, but that they would be easily substitutable, because -- and this is the scientific issue -- individual foods that people feel a lack of control around often are physically the same as other foods. They taste different, though -- people are being driven by the fact they enjoy the taste.
The research on "food addiction" isn't that some people might have an innate physical addiction to a specific kind of pizza or McD's. It's that we all have reactions to highly-palatable foods (based in our evolutionary liking for high calorie sources of food like fat and sugar), and that some develop habits of hedonic eating that become like an addiction (not for specific foods, but for highly palatable foods in general). I don't think that's the right way to think of it, but of course I think hedonic eating is a thing -- it's been my biggest struggle, although not mostly with the kinds of foods that so many here like to blame (I dislike most packaged junk foods and fast food, don't get the argument that that's harder to resist, it's just super available if you happen to like it).6 -
And unless things have changed since then the addict has sole responsibility for what they chose to do. Please anyone with recent addictions/rehab correct me if I'm wrong and things have changed.
This is absolutely correct, and why I find it so bizarre that those arguing for food addiction here want to use that as a reason to say people should be able to blame others or a situation or temptation for their choices to eat.4 -
You, and your friend, seem to have a victim mindset. If your friend asked his "friends" not to order pizza or drink at his house, and they didn't listen, they aren't really his friends. Your friend needs to have the cahunas not to bother with them anymore. If he doesn't, and he sits there feeling sorry for himself, or worse, eating and drinking all that evil food, then he's a victim.
Realistically, most people would start to avoid him anyways, as HE seems to expect everyone to adhere to his own new way of eating/drinking.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
The thread that prompted this involved a woman asking how she could assert her boundaries with her husband who thought she was ungrateful, because he gave her a box of chocolates, her favorite treat, and she ended up eating a lot of them. She was told she should be grateful and thank him and show willpower.jennifer_417 wrote: »...But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
I can agree with that, especially the last sentence. The disconnect for me is the jump from there to "sugar is addictive".
I'm one who doesn't consider foods "good" and "bad". I look at the overall context of the diet. With that said, there are people (such as my wife) who cannot exercise moderation and self-control with certain foods, so for them those foods are "bad". But that still doesn't make them universally "bad", it makes them contextually "bad". There are plenty of people who are perfectly capable of control and can enjoy treat foods in moderation.
I feel like the bolded statement is the crux of the entire argument. Thank you for stating it so succinctly. There are those who seem to want to assign a universal moral value to foods as "good" or "bad," then there are those who argue that, "X food is bad FOR ME."
And yes, I was addressing two entirely separate elements within the thread.
She should. You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.
The younger generation today is obsessed with the idea of being "triggered" and having the world creating safe spaces for them.
Let me share a story with you.
In 1980, on my way to school, cutting through a patch of woods, I was stranger raped.
For years after that, many things triggered me. Being approached from behind, gas station attendants, the smell of dirt, the sight of woods in tv shows.
It didn't take me too long to realize that the world wasn't going to change to accommodate me and that by expecting it to, I was giving my perpetrator power to continue to vicitimize me. I didn't want to be a perpetual victim. I wanted to be a victor.
It took a long while, but eventually, I got over it.
I'm still not cool with being approached from behind sometimes, or with hands on my neck, but I for damned sure love trees and the smell of dirt now.
Haha sucker, I won.
That woman can conquer over what defeats her and come out the other side a better person.
No victims here! YOU are inspiring, chickie!!
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This isn't about moderation vs. abstinence -- I think there are no bad foods, but that there may well be foods that it is better for a particular individual to avoid for a while or not have in her house, etc. (this is more of an issue if people are sharing a house -- I think having "my food" and "your food" can work as it has for me). Obviously bringing food to someone's house not yours against their specific requests or badgering them to eat foods they have expressed desire not to eat is weird and rude and IME doesn't actually happen. If it did I'd stop being friends with those people because they are weird and rude (parents who do this, eh, family sometimes lack boundaries and it takes more work, yeah).
All of this.
And I suspect the story this thread is supposedly based off of - the obese guy with horribly 'abusive' friends - lacks credibility or accountability. Or both.
Just not buying the addicted victim premise here.5 -
paperpudding wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »I just want to make a couple points here.
1. Most of the "no food is bad" argument is directed to those who constantly fall off the wagon because they've convinced themselves that all of the food they love is "bad," and think they have to restrict themselves to celery and bottled water. It's not, at least that I've seen, directed towards those who simply cannot moderate their behavior towards certain foods. For instance, I firmly believe one can eat anything and lose weight, but I know that if I bring chips and french onion dip into the house, I'll have it eaten by the next day. So I don't buy them, because I can't moderate my behavior towards them. It doesn't make them "bad."
2. By the clinical definition of "addiction," it's possibly be entirely psychologically addicted to a substance, so that no physical withdraw symptoms occur when the person stops it. So, given that, I do believe that people can be addicted to sugar, carbs, food in general, etc. And the reason people don't sell their bodies on the streets to get it is that it can be cheaply and readily purchased at the store.
That makes them bad for you because you can't control yourself with them. So you stay away from them. If they're not good for your overall health or diet then what are they? Bad is the opposite of good. For instance, I love milky ways, I can still technically eat a Milky Way on my diet but it wouldn't be the best decision with the calories I'm allowed each day to eat a 280+ calorie candy bar that has no nutritional value and will not fill me up. I'll probably just be hungry afterwards and won't have has many calories remaining for a decent meal. In my opinion, a candy bar like that would be bad for me and the success of my diet. It wouldn't be the smartest way to spend my calories for the day. Now maybe I eat something as a substitute to get a sugar fix, something that will be better for my success on my diet. one thing is a good choice, one thing is bad choice. But if you are somebody that feels you might not be successful on a diet if you look at food this way, then that's you. But my original point was that a lot of people on here don't consider the fact that many people do look at food this way and they just like to definitively say to others "there are no bad foods, eat what you want." Which, in my opinion is wrong, because it's not helpful to people that can't eat that way because moderation and self control with certain foods is not everyone's strong point.
Aren't you the poster who started threads about Which is worse: burger or pizza? and Should I eat toast or cereal?
That sort of polarised thinking about individual foods is not effective.
Your diet as a whole, ie not segregating foods into good and bad without context, is the way to look at it.
My apologies if you were not OP of those threads and I am confusing you with somebody else.
I'm not the OP of those threads. But saying my individual view on those foods is not effective is exactly what I'm talking about in the previous points I've made on this thread. Instead of you saying, "I don't like to label foods as good or bad for my own reasons." You just immediately tell other people who might have a labeling foods mindset that they are wrong and will fail by doing so. Since you don't know other mindsets about dieting you shouldn't be definitively telling people that their way is wrong. I'm not going to explain myself for the hundredth time of why I believe that commenters giving advice should not say "no foods are bad" and "eat whatever you want." You can go back and read my answers if you so wish.
0 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »Did you see that thread where a woman's husband thought she was ungrateful because he sabatoged her with chocolates and she asked advice on how to make this boundary clear to him and she was demoralized to the point that she hasn't been back on by people telling her she should thank him for chocolates and have willpower?!?!?! RAGE
Yes, there seem to be a lot of missy know-it-alls on these boards that have amazing will power. Almost makes you wonder how they got overweight to begin with right? Since they know everything about dieting and eating healthy they should just all get together and write a book called "You're doing it wrong!" Or "How hard is this to understand?" Or how about "You weak minded imbecile:Eat What You Want and Still Lose Weight."
What they don't get is they may think they are trying to help but they don't say things in a helpful tone of voice. They will state things so matter-of-factly, instead of phrasing their comments in terms of what works for them in regards to what they answering on. Like I've been saying, I label foods as bad or good, some others on here are clearly against that way of thinking towards a diet. I respect that and don't turn around and tell them "well, you are wrong." If you are going to question my way of thinking I'm going to just state my side and explain my way of thinking, but it's like there are people on here that can't accept that and will fight you to the death over your opinion until they scare you off the boards for life.
Or how about the people to which you say a very clear and concise statement to and they completely flip it around? Example:
Me:I like red hats
MFP commenter: Not everyone likes red hats!!!!
Me: I never said everyone did.
MFP Commenter: well, you implied it!
Me: um...what? Can I mail you some Twinkies?
Ok, I know I'm getting silly now, but I felt the need to get that off my chest. Let the crucifixion begin!
I wish these boards could be a more comfortable, light hearted, fun place to be, but much of the time they are not.
2 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »Did you see that thread where a woman's husband thought she was ungrateful because he sabatoged her with chocolates and she asked advice on how to make this boundary clear to him and she was demoralized to the point that she hasn't been back on by people telling her she should thank him for chocolates and have willpower?!?!?! RAGE
Yes, there seem to be a lot of missy know-it-alls on these boards that have amazing will power. Almost makes you wonder how they got overweight to begin with right? Since they know everything about dieting and eating healthy they should just all get together and write a book called "You're doing it wrong!" Or "How hard is this to understand?" Or how about "You weak minded imbecile:Eat What You Want and Still Lose Weight."
What they don't get is they may think they are trying to help but they don't say things in a helpful tone of voice. They will state things so matter-of-factly, instead of phrasing their comments in terms of what works for them in regards to what they answering on. Like I've been saying, I label foods as bad or good, some others on here are clearly against that way of thinking towards a diet. I respect that and don't turn around and tell them "well, you are wrong." If you are going to question my way of thinking I'm going to just state my side and explain my way of thinking, but it's like there are people on here that can't accept that and will fight you to the death over your opinion until they scare you off the boards for life.
Or how about the people to which you say a very clear and concise statement to and they completely flip it around? Example:
Me:I like red hats
MFP commenter: Not everyone likes red hats!!!!
Me: I never said everyone did.
MFP Commenter: well, you implied it!
Me: um...what? Can I mail you some Twinkies?
Ok, I know I'm getting silly now, but I felt the need to get that off my chest. Let the crucifixion begin!
I wish these boards could be a more comfortable, light hearted, fun place to be, but much of the time they are not.
You sound quite angry. In the end, we all have to lose our weight, our way. For me, losing 80 lbs took willpower. It took saying no to the second cupcake, even though I thought I needed it.
For you, it may be different.
You do you!6 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »Did you see that thread where a woman's husband thought she was ungrateful because he sabatoged her with chocolates and she asked advice on how to make this boundary clear to him and she was demoralized to the point that she hasn't been back on by people telling her she should thank him for chocolates and have willpower?!?!?! RAGE
Yes, there seem to be a lot of missy know-it-alls on these boards that have amazing will power. Almost makes you wonder how they got overweight to begin with right? Since they know everything about dieting and eating healthy they should just all get together and write a book called "You're doing it wrong!" Or "How hard is this to understand?" Or how about "You weak minded imbecile:Eat What You Want and Still Lose Weight."
What they don't get is they may think they are trying to help but they don't say things in a helpful tone of voice. They will state things so matter-of-factly, instead of phrasing their comments in terms of what works for them in regards to what they answering on. Like I've been saying, I label foods as bad or good, some others on here are clearly against that way of thinking towards a diet. I respect that and don't turn around and tell them "well, you are wrong." If you are going to question my way of thinking I'm going to just state my side and explain my way of thinking, but it's like there are people on here that can't accept that and will fight you to the death over your opinion until they scare you off the boards for life.
Or how about the people to which you say a very clear and concise statement to and they completely flip it around? Example:
Me:I like red hats
MFP commenter: Not everyone likes red hats!!!!
Me: I never said everyone did.
MFP Commenter: well, you implied it!
Me: um...what? Can I mail you some Twinkies?
Ok, I know I'm getting silly now, but I felt the need to get that off my chest. Let the crucifixion begin!
I wish these boards could be a more comfortable, light hearted, fun place to be, but much of the time they are not.
No these boards are more sycophantic, couch your comments in disneyfied terms otherwise people will get their knickers in a twist. But as long as you do that you can say whatever you want. And make up whatever facts suit you and you're fine.
The way to deal with any Internet forum is to read all posts in a muppet voice of your choosing
And don't infer offence where none is implied
The words "you are a..." generally are the precursor to an insult. The words "that is a " generally relate to a concept
It's an easy distinction to make for most adults
And it's basic child development...disapprove the action not the child
Edit to add...oh and if you really can't stomach the way, or the things, that specific posters post then use the ignore button...it makes it so much more pleasant to not have to continually face specific comments that some people repeat ad nauseum, particularly when they have been effectively rebutted over and over again.2 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »]The younger generation today is obsessed with the idea of being "triggered" and having the world creating safe spaces for them
I understand this but they can't take the blame all by themselves. surely the older generation around them have helped create this. Over protecting child to protect them from what might happen etc
BTW. When we are saying younger generation what age are we talking out of curiosity
Whoever's taken over Tumblr. And academia.
And you are right. The coddling of children and the culture of participation trophies is to blame.
I've long noticed the trend of pendulum swings. Society seems to over-correct deficiencies. Take the story of my rape. I had some ... ahem... lovely... moments with the police during questioning. We've gone from blaming rape victims to making a mockery of rape by crying "rape culture" over the stupidest things. At some point, I'm sure we'll settle in some middle ground of sensible handling of the issue.
I am hoping the same happens with this whole coddling issue. We've gone from "toughen up buttercup" which was often a bit cruel to those of a more sensitive nature, to over-protecting children. There's a middle ground to be found. Hopefully, we'll get there.6 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »Did you see that thread where a woman's husband thought she was ungrateful because he sabatoged her with chocolates and she asked advice on how to make this boundary clear to him and she was demoralized to the point that she hasn't been back on by people telling her she should thank him for chocolates and have willpower?!?!?! RAGE
He didn't sabotage her though. This is where personal responsibility comes in. He didn't force feed them to her. She chose to eat them. You seem to think she is totally helpless and a victim. That's more damaging to her psyche than pointing out that she has the power to stand up and say no and have other options. I guess you blame stores and fast food restaurants for sabotaging people? As I said earlier the victim mindset is so rampant that it is sickening. Quit being a victim and blaming everyone else. Nothing will change until you stop doing that. How will you ever lose weight or whatever if it's never your fault and totally out of your control.9 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
As I said, I'm a drug addict. I find the claim of "sugar is addictive" when many of the addiction criteria aren't met. Food tastes good. Sweet food tastes better. Doesn't make food or sugar addictive. I use my own behavior to check addiction:
1. Would you break the law to get your fix?
2. Would anything with a similar drug profile work to give you your fix?
You also miss the big point of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Yeah, people eat themselves to death and/or to the point of self-immobilization. Doesn't make sugar addictive.
At one point, I thought I was a food addict. Then I realized, after a lot of self-examination, that my overeating was me covering for other mental and emotional problems in my life. When I dealt with the problems, oh lookie-lookie, my "food addiction" went away.
Good points. I think there are a lot of people who over eat and have dealt with weight issues their whole life can probably trace it back to mental or emotional issues. I know I am definitely an emotional/stress eater. It makes me feeler better to not think about eating healthy and to just eat what I want when I'm down or stressed. But I'm working on breaking that habit.
2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »DisruptedMatrix wrote: »and let's not forget the other factors involved... remember the girl who is constantly intensely hungry because of a medical condition? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/2020-rare-condition-makes-kids-intensely-hungry-247-25005190
she is gaining weight on 900 calories a day.
She has been so desperate she ate dog food.
Not sure what a so-called "bizarre medical mystery" has to do with the topic at hand? <confused>
Nevermind. Getting into Prader-Willi isn't worth it.1 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
As I said, I'm a drug addict. I find the claim of "sugar is addictive" when many of the addiction criteria aren't met. Food tastes good. Sweet food tastes better. Doesn't make food or sugar addictive. I use my own behavior to check addiction:
1. Would you break the law to get your fix?
2. Would anything with a similar drug profile work to give you your fix?
You also miss the big point of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Yeah, people eat themselves to death and/or to the point of self-immobilization. Doesn't make sugar addictive.
At one point, I thought I was a food addict. Then I realized, after a lot of self-examination, that my overeating was me covering for other mental and emotional problems in my life. When I dealt with the problems, oh lookie-lookie, my "food addiction" went away.
Good points. I think there are a lot of people who over eat and have dealt with weight issues their whole life can probably trace it back to mental or emotional issues. I know I am definitely an emotional/stress eater. It makes me feeler better to not think about eating healthy and to just eat what I want when I'm down or stressed. But I'm working on breaking that habit.
This is awesome! This is a huge breakthrough that you recognize the problem and are working on fixing it
I am not 100% recovered from my eating disorder but once I worked through things and figured out why I did certain behaviors it helped a lot. 1 -
JustMissTracy wrote: »DisruptedMatrix wrote: »Did you see that thread where a woman's husband thought she was ungrateful because he sabatoged her with chocolates and she asked advice on how to make this boundary clear to him and she was demoralized to the point that she hasn't been back on by people telling her she should thank him for chocolates and have willpower?!?!?! RAGE
Yes, there seem to be a lot of missy know-it-alls on these boards that have amazing will power. Almost makes you wonder how they got overweight to begin with right? Since they know everything about dieting and eating healthy they should just all get together and write a book called "You're doing it wrong!" Or "How hard is this to understand?" Or how about "You weak minded imbecile:Eat What You Want and Still Lose Weight."
What they don't get is they may think they are trying to help but they don't say things in a helpful tone of voice. They will state things so matter-of-factly, instead of phrasing their comments in terms of what works for them in regards to what they answering on. Like I've been saying, I label foods as bad or good, some others on here are clearly against that way of thinking towards a diet. I respect that and don't turn around and tell them "well, you are wrong." If you are going to question my way of thinking I'm going to just state my side and explain my way of thinking, but it's like there are people on here that can't accept that and will fight you to the death over your opinion until they scare you off the boards for life.
Or how about the people to which you say a very clear and concise statement to and they completely flip it around? Example:
Me:I like red hats
MFP commenter: Not everyone likes red hats!!!!
Me: I never said everyone did.
MFP Commenter: well, you implied it!
Me: um...what? Can I mail you some Twinkies?
Ok, I know I'm getting silly now, but I felt the need to get that off my chest. Let the crucifixion begin!
I wish these boards could be a more comfortable, light hearted, fun place to be, but much of the time they are not.
You sound quite angry. In the end, we all have to lose our weight, our way. For me, losing 80 lbs took willpower. It took saying no to the second cupcake, even though I thought I needed it.
For you, it may be different.
You do you!
I might sound a little angry because people should not be scared off of here or made to feel bad when they are on these boards for help with their weight loss journey. It's sickening to see how some people are attacked for their opinions and choices when it comes to dieting. Like you said "you do you." Share your opinion or experience in hopes of being some help to others, but don't go on the attack if they disagree. Sure, there are people that start threads as confrontational right off the bat, and those people are wrong to do so. But I've seen people that create a very innocent post and are crucified by the end of it. I always end up feeling bad for them because I'm sure they never thought it was going to turn so ugly so fast.
4
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