Moderation or Deprivation? Which works for you personally?
Options
Replies
-
sheliftsheavythings wrote: »Animals eat for fuel. Being a 'foodie' is a human behavior. Change your perspective.
So, you've never seen a dog do tricks for cookies when they are sitting next to their full food bowl?
Do not subscribe behaviours made from a lack of choice to a preference. Bears wouldn't get drunk on fermented berries if they didn't prefer the taste of them.
10 -
I am very much like you!1
-
Moderation. There isn't any one thing I plan to give up for the rest of my life and I'm never going back to being obese again, so I'm learning now how to fit all of the things I enjoy into my life in a way that upholds all of the time and effort I put into losing the weight. Old me used to think it had to be about deprivation, but I know that will eventually lead to binging.5
-
sheliftsheavythings wrote: »Moderation or deprivation is not really the point, is it. The whole idea of food consumption has morphed from being simply a fuel, into being a pleasure. If one treats food as a means to an end: to aid our bodies to function properly, efficiently and in a healthy fashion, there would be no question as to how we do so.
Animals eat for fuel. Being a 'foodie' is a human behavior. Change your perspective.
You clearly aren't Italian
What is wrong with enjoying food and being a foodie? I love food... I can take pleasure in eating and still be healthy and functioning. Using new and fresh ingredients, how flavours go together, the whole cooking process, enjoying food with those you love.
9 -
I'm a mostly moderation person. But have cut out a few things completely. So no pop (soda) except diet, not even once in a while. And a few other things I've not had in 2 years. But, for the most part, I moderate. As someone else posted, I bought small bags (~30g) of chips and would have one or maybe two at a time. But I always wanted the S&V and had to eat the ketchup or BBQ, so I've gone back to buying family sized bags of S&V, but weighing out a 1/2 portion or a single portion and being done.
It's taken time to learn how to moderate some food, and I now have normal ice cream in the house again.
1 -
Moderation for me. I love food and I would eat all day if I have the chance to. With that being said, I eat every hour on the hour in moderation and healthy for the most part.
When you put your body into deprivation it starts eating at your muscles and other important fats surrounding your organs just so it can function, and that is a no-no. Eating moderation gives your body the energy and fuel that it needs so it doesn't have to go after your body's reserves5 -
Moderation. I have a very restricted diet for health reasons. If I can say it, I will. I have to have some joy in life. Lol1
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »a 1000+ poster here for whom moderating everything never works. I banged my head against that wall for a good 15 years before finally moving on.
Weight loss comes down to calorie deprivation. Some choose to cut calories in all foods. Those are the people who have no trouble stopping at just one bite.... I always wonder how those people gained their weight.
. Others cut out some foods, typically nonessential highly refined carbs and sugars, and that help reduce cravings and the likelihood of overeating.
I don't think moderation is a skill. I think it is something that some people can do because they don't have trigger foods. If they are in fact avoiding trigger foods, that is abstaining or deprivation. IMO
Just like anyone gains weight: by eating too much. I didn't decide I want to stop at one bite and it magically resolved all overeating for me. That's not how it works. I just gradually acquired skills and strategies to eat the things I like without overeating, and that has never involved stopping at one bite, to be honest. I just found the lowest amount I can eat of some things that is satisfying. If your usual portion is a family sized bag of chips, would you be able to tell the difference if someone removes one chip? 2? 5? Would a two serving bag be enough at some point if that's all you had access to? Like I mentioned before, there is more to moderation that magically becoming a model eater.
I could not tell a difference if a few chips are removed, that was my problem. If I had 10, 30, or100 chips I still craved more after eating them and it lasted for hours, whereas if I eat none then I have no cravings (or very reduced anyways).
I spent years buying the small snack sizes of trigger treat foods. Everyone says not to deprive yourself if your favoured foods or you may binge, right? I would count out my chips, or just take the one cookie, or the Halloween bite-sized candy bar, make smaller muffins, or have one regular soda? I would eat that and then go looking for more food. If I did not eat more, I was cranky, hungry, and often shaky and headachy for hours. If I never touched my trigger foods, no problems at all.
Avoidance was not easy all at once. It took a week or two to get there, but moderation never got easy. Ever. No matter if I weighed my foods, pre logged or post logged, exercised or not, if I ate my trigger foods (refined carbs and sugars mainly) it never got easier. I can't live that way.
Funny how this varies so much between people.9 -
My husband and I have had this discussion recently. I need moderation, he needs deprivation to be successful. So that means I need to hide the chocolate from him and buy the ice cream that he hates but I love lol2
-
Moderation for me. I love food and I would eat all day if I have the chance to. With that being said, I eat every hour on the hour in moderation and healthy for the most part.
When you put your body into deprivation it starts eating at your muscles and other important fats surrounding your organs just so it can function, and that is a no-no. Eating moderation gives your body the energy and fuel that it needs so it doesn't have to go after your body's reserves
That's not what I think of when the word "deprivation" is used. I just don't eat the things that I used to crave. I don't crave them anymore, so I don't think I'm depriving myself. At first, maybe, but not now. Depriving yourself of food you can't control doesn't start eating at your muscles and other fats around your organs. Only if you are truly starving yourself will that happen. Depriving yourself of a chocolate bar doesn't do anything.4 -
a 1000+ poster here for whom moderating everything never works. I banged my head against that wall for a good 15 years before finally moving on.
Weight loss comes down to calorie deprivation. Some choose to cut calories in all foods. Those are the people who have no trouble stopping at just one bite.... I always wonder how those people gained their weight.. Others cut out some foods, typically nonessential highly refined carbs and sugars, and that help reduce cravings and the likelihood of overeating.
I don't think moderation is a skill. I think it is something that some people can do because they don't have trigger foods. If they are in fact avoiding trigger foods, that is abstaining or deprivation. IMO- I've always had trouble at stopping at just one bite. (I like my food would be a nice way of putting it, greedy not such a nice way.)
- I gained my weight because I ate too much of my regular foods.
- I didn't cut out any foods to lose weight but did reduce my weekly quantity - from my snacks, fat and alcohol intakes mostly.
- Highly refined carbs and sugar never made up a big part of my diet.
- I think moderation and self-control are life skills to be worked on. We aren't slaves to our impulses.
- I do have trigger foods but I don't avoid or abstain - I moderate. They are in the house but I choose to eat them sensibly not excessively. That's worked for weight loss and maintenance.
Just been given 400g of salted cashew nuts as an Easter present, very much a trigger food of mine.
I could easily eat the lot in one go but that would be 2,468 cals on top of my planned food intake.
But I won't, I'll eat them over several days and make them fit in while enjoying eating them. Maybe I'll open them tomorrow as I'll have a bigger calorie allowance. Maybe I won't but when I do it will be a choice.
1 -
-
I have to be all in as well. If I give myself an inch, I take a mile.3
-
Some people do better cutting out foods, I get it and understand it. My only objections to that would be:
1. Do they have a long-term plan? Like either cutting out certain foods for good or being ready for the steep learning curve of reintroducing them.
2. Are they doing that because they are telling themselves they "can't" have something or are they choosing not to have something because they feel food management is more pleasant that way?
3. Is cutting out the food causing them to be miserable or does it feel like a sustainable choice?
If the answers to these questions are in favor of abstaining (not deprivation) then that's absolutely the right choice for them.4 -
sheliftsheavythings wrote: »Moderation or deprivation is not really the point, is it. The whole idea of food consumption has morphed from being simply a fuel, into being a pleasure. If one treats food as a means to an end: to aid our bodies to function properly, efficiently and in a healthy fashion, there would be no question as to how we do so.
Animals eat for fuel. Being a 'foodie' is a human behavior. Change your perspective.
There is nothing inherently wrong about getting pleasure from food. Animals other than humans demonstrate food preferences, they're clearly getting *something* from food besides pure calories.
I engage in a lot of human behaviors. What we're doing right now (using computers to have a conversation) is a human behavior. What's wrong with that?4 -
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »a 1000+ poster here for whom moderating everything never works. I banged my head against that wall for a good 15 years before finally moving on.
Weight loss comes down to calorie deprivation. Some choose to cut calories in all foods. Those are the people who have no trouble stopping at just one bite.... I always wonder how those people gained their weight.. Others cut out some foods, typically nonessential highly refined carbs and sugars, and that help reduce cravings and the likelihood of overeating.
I don't think moderation is a skill. I think it is something that some people can do because they don't have trigger foods. If they are in fact avoiding trigger foods, that is abstaining or deprivation. IMO
Just like anyone gains weight: by eating too much. I didn't decide I want to stop at one bite and it magically resolved all overeating for me. That's not how it works. I just gradually acquired skills and strategies to eat the things I like without overeating, and that has never involved stopping at one bite, to be honest. I just found the lowest amount I can eat of some things that is satisfying. If your usual portion is a family sized bag of chips, would you be able to tell the difference if someone removes one chip? 2? 5? Would a two serving bag be enough at some point if that's all you had access to? Like I mentioned before, there is more to moderation that magically becoming a model eater.
See, the problem is that for me, for some foods, the minimum size is a whole lot more than my blood sugar (or my calorie allowance, although that's more flexible) can tolerate. Oreo cookies are a great example. If I tried to slowly eat and savor one Oreo cookie it tastes a lot like sugar flavored Krisco wrapped in cocoa flavored cardboard. But a whole bag of Oreo cookies scarfed down while watching bad 60's movies is magic. I used to do that all the time before I was diagnosed. If I did it today I can't even begin to guess what my blood sugar would be, since the most I can have and stay in the safe zone is maybe three Oreos.
My point is, I don't even really like Oreos in moderation. One Oreo is frankly disgusting. Only as a binge food are they enjoyable to me at all. The same thing is true to a lesser degree of doughnuts and greasy chain pizza. (High end pizza is a different matter.)
But I can eat just one Pepperidge Farm Brussels cookie, alongside something else to make it more filling such as an ounce of really nice cheese, and enjoy it, and be perfectly satisfied. So that's what I do now when I crave a whole box of Oreos. Is that moderation? Is it deprivation? I would say it's both and neither - it's a compromise and a substitution based on knowing my body's needs. I simply don't need and never did need to eat a whole box of Oreos. Who does? It's a pleasure I am willing to deprive myself of for the rest of my life, so that my life will be a whole lot longer.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »a 1000+ poster here for whom moderating everything never works. I banged my head against that wall for a good 15 years before finally moving on.
Weight loss comes down to calorie deprivation. Some choose to cut calories in all foods. Those are the people who have no trouble stopping at just one bite.... I always wonder how those people gained their weight.. Others cut out some foods, typically nonessential highly refined carbs and sugars, and that help reduce cravings and the likelihood of overeating.
I don't think moderation is a skill. I think it is something that some people can do because they don't have trigger foods. If they are in fact avoiding trigger foods, that is abstaining or deprivation. IMO
Just like anyone gains weight: by eating too much. I didn't decide I want to stop at one bite and it magically resolved all overeating for me. That's not how it works. I just gradually acquired skills and strategies to eat the things I like without overeating, and that has never involved stopping at one bite, to be honest. I just found the lowest amount I can eat of some things that is satisfying. If your usual portion is a family sized bag of chips, would you be able to tell the difference if someone removes one chip? 2? 5? Would a two serving bag be enough at some point if that's all you had access to? Like I mentioned before, there is more to moderation that magically becoming a model eater.
See, the problem is that for me, for some foods, the minimum size is a whole lot more than my blood sugar (or my calorie allowance, although that's more flexible) can tolerate. Oreo cookies are a great example. If I tried to slowly eat and savor one Oreo cookie it tastes a lot like sugar flavored Krisco wrapped in cocoa flavored cardboard. But a whole bag of Oreo cookies scarfed down while watching bad 60's movies is magic. I used to do that all the time before I was diagnosed. If I did it today I can't even begin to guess what my blood sugar would be, since the most I can have and stay in the safe zone is maybe three Oreos.
My point is, I don't even really like Oreos in moderation. One Oreo is frankly disgusting. Only as a binge food are they enjoyable to me at all. The same thing is true to a lesser degree of doughnuts and greasy chain pizza. (High end pizza is a different matter.)
But I can eat just one Pepperidge Farm Brussels cookie, alongside something else to make it more filling such as an ounce of really nice cheese, and enjoy it, and be perfectly satisfied. So that's what I do now when I crave a whole box of Oreos. Is that moderation? Is it deprivation? I would say it's both and neither - it's a compromise and a substitution based on knowing my body's needs. I simply don't need and never did need to eat a whole box of Oreos. Who does? It's a pleasure I am willing to deprive myself of for the rest of my life, so that my life will be a whole lot longer.
This may seem really pedantic, but when someone determines that they simply don't want a certain food because the serving size they would enjoy is much larger than their calorie goal (or health goal) will permit and chooses something else instead, I don't really think of that as deprivation.
If you wanted *an* Oreo, you would have one (if I'm reading you correctly). You don't want an Oreo, you'd rather have a different cookie that tastes better to you.
I love granola. I only eat it rarely because I prefer giant bowls of it. If I wanted some, I would have some. But I'd rather have a completely different breakfast than a piddly little (based on how I judge servings) bowl of granola. I don't feel like I'm depriving myself of anything because I'm free at any time to decide I do want some granola, just like you're free at any time to choose to have an Oreo.
(Apologize if I'm misunderstanding what you wrote or putting words in your mouth).
Even those of us who choose moderation have to exercise control with portion sizes (unless we want to gain weight). Eating an entire package of a favorite high calorie food isn't really an option for any of us (unless it's a special occasion type thing).4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions