Am I really committing a crime against humanity?

This thread has made me want pie.

OP, you seem quite passionate about your "no junk food" mantra. That's fine if it works for you, but it could be that you're broadcasting a little too loudly and opening the door for people to feel entitled to discuss what you do/don't eat. I find if I don't make a big deal out of personal things, other people don't either in general.

lorrichoo wrote: »

Why is it such a crime to want to change your life?

Throughout my life I have suffered with anxiety and depression and also have an excessive junk food addiction. It was a few years ago when I did something about it that changed my life for the better. I quit junk food cold turkey. It was very hard going at first as I suffered withdrawal symptoms but after that I felt like a new person - energetic, improved concentration, improved mental health, I felt amazing. And I lost over a stone in the process.
I no longer craved junk food, I craved healthy food like salad and vegetables. Then along came the time of year when people celebrated with chocolate and cakes and extended family offered me chocolate and cakes and said I had done so well, why don't I have a treat. I thought I am in a better place now, I can be social with them. I was wrong and it all went downhill from there. Que years later and almost 3 stone heavier, I am the heaviest I have ever been in my life and my junk food addiction is back with a vengeance and I feel awful - so lethargic and like life is passing me by. I am in my mid 30's and almost 13 stone. According to my BMI I am overweight and have a high risk of diabetes.

lorrichoo wrote: »

So I have first hand experience of why quitting out the junk food is beneficial for me. It's not just what I am led to believe, it's what I have experienced myself. In reality it would be nice to get to a stage where I can just have the odd bit of junk food at christmas or birthdays or meals out but it will take a lot of effort to get to that stage. I know once I have lost all the weight I need to and feel much healthier, then i will be able to reach that stage.

Without addressing the real cause of the OP's struggle, in my opinion the OP is very unlikely to experience a different result by using the same approach that was used a few years ago. The OP self-identifies as an all or nothing person, and I believe that the posts OP has made thus far confirm that this type of distorted thinking is an issue that needs to be dealt with. A person with an all or nothing thinking style would look at food in a very black and white way - foods are good or bad. You must eat 100% good food to be successful. Even a taste of something bad means that an all or nothing thinker must throw in the towel because anything other than 100% equals complete failure. The idea of moderation isn't really an option for someone with this kind of distorted thinking.

So, yeah, I'm not really addressing this whole idea of total abstention vs. everything in moderation, which seems to me to be a bit of a false dichotomy anyway. I'm addressing the fact that the OP needs to consider that distorted thinking may be what is actually sabotaging the OP's attempts at losing weight, rather than exclusively focusing on the behavior of others. Losing weight is the easy part, maintenance is hard. Losing weight won't fix all of the OP's problems. In the past, it did not magically enable the OP to eat junk food in moderation. There is no reason to think that the same approach will lead to a different result this time.

ythannah wrote: »

If one has a broad understanding of 'processed' food as being altered from its original form, with additives, then I can see how pie could be considered in that category when compared to a piece of fresh fruit.

Pie is fruit, rendered down, with a lot of added sugar, flour, shortening... plus chemical preservatives if it's made commercially so it can sit on the store shelf for a week or so.

If someone has a preference for eating fresh fruit in its original form instead of as pie, I really don't see a problem with that.

Of course pie is processed.

But people use "processed" in all kinds of weird ways, so I wouldn't find it weird if I had a policy of not eating processed foods (which, btw, I do not, although I mostly cook from whole foods, eat in season when possible, ethically source my meat, blah, blah), if someone offered me a homemade pie. Lots of people think processed means "packaged stuff I buy from the store with lots of words on the label that are confusing" (not that I support that definition, I think it's odd). So if I said "no thanks, I don't eat processed food" (which again I would find a weird response vs. "no thanks!"), I would not be bothered or get mad or find it all that odd if they said "it's not processed, it's homemade!" That was one of my points.

The other is that I think the reaction described makes more sense if the person is saying stuff like "I don't eat processed food" or "I don't eat unhealthy junk" when offered stuff vs. a cheerful "no thanks!" which would be my preference.

Bigger issue is that whether or not something is processed has zero to do with whether it's nutrient dense or not (pie is not only processed but it's ALSO not all that nutrient dense for the cals IMO (although it has fruit) -- it's a sometimes food that I mainly eat at holidays since I don't have the best self control with it if it's actually homemade by someone good at it), but that's off the topic of the thread.

WinoGelato wrote: »

I have a legit question for the “abstainers”. And before I pose it I want to preface that I’m a “moderator” and I’m guilty of arguing that this is the best method for everyone, even with @kshama2001 in my early days I think (sorry!).

But for the abstainers, is my presumption correct that the foods that are hard to moderate are a smaller number of specific foods? Not just “junk food”? KShama mentioned Ben and Jerry’s as being problematic. I remember another poster talking about ribs, someone else about cheesecake, someone about peanut butter m&ms.

OP seems to be making these sweeping generalizations about anything that contains salt or sugar (and I think may be in the UK where I think NHS has done some campaigns about the evils of these ingredients and limiting them). This is the part that I feel may be problematic . Even those for whom abstinence is the best strategy usually understand the concept of trigger foods and don’t blame their overindulgence on “addiction”.

This is the part that while harder to admit, may be better for OP on the long run to accept that certain foods are challenging but still completely within her control to say yes or no to.

Thoughts from anyone?

I was thinking this myself. I also am curious how avoiding processed food leads to health improvement. I can understand avoiding pie because it is sweet but it is not like all processed food has the same ingredients. If you were physically reactive to MSG, a certain dye, a certain preservative, etc. that I can understand but not just processed foods. If you are avoiding them because you believe them to be toxic somehow that is different.

I would point out that while I did abstain from 2 products it was only necessary for me to get my deficit legs underneath me. Once I turned the corner and started changing my habits and my mindset I learned to have control so I admit I do not fully grasp the issue that drives total abstinence. I still feel a slight compulsion to eat a whole bag of reese pb cups or a whole bag of jerky when I taste them but my my desire to stay within my calorie limit is stronger. I wish everyone could moderate but wishing doesn't get me very far I am afraid.

WinoGelato wrote: »

I have a legit question for the “abstainers”. And before I pose it I want to preface that I’m a “moderator” and I’m guilty of arguing that this is the best method for everyone, even with @kshama2001 in my early days I think (sorry!).

But for the abstainers, is my presumption correct that the foods that are hard to moderate are a smaller number of specific foods? Not just “junk food”? KShama mentioned Ben and Jerry’s as being problematic. I remember another poster talking about ribs, someone else about cheesecake, someone about peanut butter m&ms.

OP seems to be making these sweeping generalizations about anything that contains salt or sugar (and I think may be in the UK where I think NHS has done some campaigns about the evils of these ingredients and limiting them). This is the part that I feel may be problematic . Even those for whom abstinence is the best strategy usually understand the concept of trigger foods and don’t blame their overindulgence on “addiction”.

This is the part that while harder to admit, may be better for OP on the long run to accept that certain foods are challenging but still completely within her control to say yes or no to.

Thoughts from anyone?

Hmm. I abstain from some things (mostly, nothing is off limits always). That's because it's easier not to think about it.

I also find the idea that it would be as broad as "junk food" weird. Lots of so-called junk food I moderate really easily (lots I don't eat because I don't like it). I'm the opposite of kshama, perhaps, since the very first dessert food I started moderating (i.e., keeping at home, eating after dinner within my cals) was ice cream -- Talenti mostly, but also B&J, Jeni's, and other delicious options. I had one MFP friend back in the day (when I visited my feed, and before I quit and rejoined) who both thought I was the cleanest eater he knew (LOL) and said he loved to see my ice cream choices.

I never ate chips regularly, or standard chocolates, packaged cookies, etc. -- I've had a bunch of chocolates leftover from Halloween in my place since then and I keep thinking I should see if they go bad and if not donate them. I'm picky about my junk food. But I do really like homemade sweet baked goods (pie, sweetbreads, some cookies, most cake is eh (some is good, some cupcakes are good), brownies are eh, but blondies can be good), so I've basically stopped baking them other than at the holidays, and I also don't allow them in my house unless I've planned to eat them.

Other things I do not moderate well = naan if I have curry to dip it into (solution -- only at Indian restaurants and only about once a month when I've worked out or am planning a long workout day). Ethiopian (same concept). Fries if they are really good and I have a lot on my plate or a basket for the table (a pub I used to go to once a month). Also good warm and salty tortilla chips in a Mexican place when I have good guac or salsa.

Also, I used to struggle with good cheese, but I've gotten pretty much a handle on that, and same with salted nuts, most of the time. There was a paleo granola I ate about 10 servings of and quit eating, also. It's not hard to identify my specific triggers.

Like NovusDies, once I addressed the all or nothing issue, which I really think is different from the abstainer vs. moderator thing, I don't really get the "ate a bit of this and then was off track for days, let alone years." My abstainer vs. moderator thing is that for some foods eating a little and stopping is LESS pleasurable than eating none. I don't think about it if I eat none, and eating just a little is stressful and no fun. But eating it more rarely and eating what I want when I do works well for me. So when I eat pie I eat as much pie as I feel like (not that much bc it's usually a holiday where I ate a bunch of other things, but I don't count cals). When I go to an Indian restaurant I eat everything I want. When I go to a Mexican place with good tortilla chips, I enjoy them. (Re chips if they were on my plate I'd eat what was there and be happy, the "hard to moderate is 100% based on them being there in abundance. There's a restaurant near my office I sometimes splurge on for lunch and they have a 150 cal bag of delicious homemade chips as an option (alternative a more caloric portion of almonds). I usually get the almonds, sometimes get the chips, and don't overeat chips after that although if the same chips were given to me in an unlimited portion I'd likely eat way more.)

Not sure if this makes sense, but the idea is that it's actually way more complicated in reality than "moderator" vs. "abstainer."

Processed foods?

I googled a link that might explain the aversion. There's reasonable grounds for someone to choose to avoid them.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/eating-more-ultra-processed-foods-may-shorten-life-span

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Processed and ultra processed are not the same. Frozen spinach is processed. Whole grain bread is processed, rolled oats are processed, canned tomatoes are processed, cottage cheese is processed, smoked salmon is processed, boneless, skinless chicken breast is processed.

Ironically, the link defines ultraprocessed as microwavable and ready to eat, so would not include the oh so evil homemade pie.

But again not the topic of this thread.

It's a tangent, true.

Articles tend to oversimplify studies, giving the gist rather than the detail. I think that anything containing off the shelf white flour would probably fall foul.

I am sorry you have had to go through this. People generally do not like change, especially if it reflects a change they wish to make but feel they are unable to do so. Your family obviously indulge often in sweet treats or foods that you deem as junk food. Your attempts to rock the boat probably feel threatening to them and remind them that there are other ways of eating, which is something they may not be ready to accept. Alternatively, food may be their way of expressing love or affection. My mum is this way, so when I visit her I eat what I am able to and say I will take the rest home to eat the next day, that usually appeases her and she doesn't get upset or feel like I have rejected her efforts. Often the food I take home goes to the neighbours or to the cat, but obviously I don't tell her that!

My advice to you is to be firm - very firm. I went through the same thing when I chose to become pescetarian (mainly vegetarian these days) 5 years ago, and I have also had to stand my ground with regards to alcohol. My family are heavy drinkers and big meat eaters so I am like an alien to them. Phrases that worked for me were "What I put in to my body doesn't affect you in any way, so why are you mad about it?" and "I have made a choice for myself, please respect that, as I respect your choices".

I would also second the comments suggesting some therapy. I have anxiety issues too and therapy can be useful in helping to deal with these types of situations. Wishing you all the best OP.

I doubt that white flour intake has a significant effect on cancer risk - and any article talking about good carbs and bad carbs and reducing carbs being neccesary for weight loss doesn't seem all that credible to me.

But anyway, the point isn't whether OP's choices are valid or not - obviously they are to her.

The point is how to refuse offers of food without it turning into a drama.

I'm kind of an odd man out on this topic. I love telling people "No, I'm good." I actually get a strange inspiration from it!

I had a husband who would try and sabotage my weight loss, along with his family.

I felt powerful telling them in a polite way to take their foods and shove it down their own throats, I was good eating my salad.

Even though my husband is deceased, I still have to visit his family (they're still my daughter's grandparents, aunts and uncles). I still won't touch their food!! I take my own food or shop for my foods when I get to town.

Others are right, after a few times of turning them down and sticking to my salad (without any emotions), even when they were eating deep dish pan pizza in front of me, waving it in my face saying, "one piece won't hurt." They quit pushing their foods as hard as they had been.

After telling husband to stop bringing me home fast food, and making him eat it all himself or literally taking the burgers he brought home for me and throwing them in garbage right in front of him... He finally quit.

Stand your ground and take control!

Just be blunt and to the point, " shove that pie up your rear end and get out of my way". That should help them understand.

My mother is tiny and has a metabolism disorder, so she's hardly ever weighed more than 100 lbs soaking wet. Even while pregnant she hardly gained weight.
So its hard for her to understand when I refuse sweets, because I didn't inherit her metabolism.

She also sees that I'm healthy now and have some noticeable muscle tone, so she thinks that now that I've reached my goals I can stop going to the gym and can eat junk again.
I just laugh and explain to her that I go to the gym because I like it, not to lose weight. And that I can and do eat junk sometimes, but that I can't allow myself to have it all the time or control goes out the window and I'll end up right back where I started.

She means well. She just doesn't understand because she's never been there. It's a little easier for me, though, I think, because I work in law enforcement. It terrifies her and she wants me to be safe, so all I have to use is, "I have to be conscious of what I put in my body so that I can stay in the best shape possible and increase my odds of staying safe or being able to fight my way out of a situation."

Just keep at it. If its easier to not offer an explanation, don't. My mom doesn't push as much anymore, unless its a special occasion and she thinks I should treat myself. Like I said, she means well. Perhaps these people THINK they have your best interests at heart, even if they don't. Its frustrating, I know. Just keep doing what you're doing. If you do want to offer an explanation, just tell them that you have found other ways to reward yourself than food, and if they want to treat you, they can do so by maybe going with you to get nails done, going hiking, going shopping, whatever it is you enjoy together.

NovusDies wrote: »

glovepuppet wrote: »

With regards to flour,

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/308679.php

This piece mentioned increased cancer risks linked to consumption of processed carbs.

I realise that this wasn't the original question, but the topic of processed foods is still an interesting one. And someone said, "I also am curious how avoiding processed food leads to health improvement." so the information seemed appropriate.

Personally, I don't eat flour based foods unless it's a special occasion. I'm not rampantly anti junk, I'm not preaching that you're poisoning your bodies, but I feel it's a reasonable health precaution that people shouldn't be criticised for making.

That doesn't explain anything. For one thing my question was explained as "how can avoiding an entire group of foods with multiple variations of ingredients lead to health improvement?" Avoiding processed foods with flour does not explain this.

Secondly, avoiding a health risk is not the same as health improvement. I can avoid risk by driving with my eyes open but it does not improve my health.

Some people do have to avoid flour and their health does improve as a result. That I can understand.

To be fair I didn't read the article you linked. I think believing this kind of thing is a slippery slope. Anything can be connected to cancer because the number of people who get it is very large and so connecting any common grocery item to it is extremely easy.

Everyone who has ever gotten cancer breathes air and drinks water so there you go...