Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor
I see NA's point, however, there is grey area that can mess with the "switch" concept. Example - Either I'm biking to work or I'm not. I'm not, anymore. My reason is that it's too cold. Some people may say my switch is off, that it's an excuse, that I should be out there biking. To me, it's not even up for debate. I was out there for a bit when the weather turned and I was miserable. Should I be making myself miserable for long term gain? Yes, that's a valid argument. However, by my measure, it's too miserable for me to do, period.
|
I'm not sure where that example is going. Are you talking about saving money by biking? Or are you talking about exercising? If biking to work is your only form of exercise, and your goal is to get more exercise, then the "switch" has to do with making a choice TO exercise despite your feelings. There are other ways of exercising than biking. So saying "I'm not going to get exercise because it's too cold" is an excuse. The switch is off. Does that make sense?
Quote:
|
Same goes for eating. How often is too often for moderation's sake? Am I still "eating right" if I eat small, nutritious portions for dinner, but have fast food for lunch everyday? What about if I have fast food every other day, or once a week? Yes, if I ate healthy at each and every meal there would be no question, but demanding that of any human being would make them, well, miserable. So we say "moderation", but there's no "switch" about it, no way you can say you're on the wagon or off the wagon. What if eating one "unhealthy" meal a week isn't enough for me? How miserable is too miserable?
|
I'd say it completely depends on what your goals are (weight loss/gain/maintenance, cholesterol levels, blood sugar levels, etc.) It would also depend on one's own metabolism. Moderation is something that isn't significantly and consistently undermining your goal. But the "switch" has more to do with the process than the result (which is what your argument seems to be concentrating on). For someone in OA, for instance, I think that falling off the wagon means that they go into an uncontrolled eating cycle. But I'm pretty sure even for someone in OA, a high-fat meal isn't "off the wagon" if it's a planned thing consistent with the rest of the week's caloric intake (I could be wrong on OA's philosophy on that).
Bottom line though is that one cannot eat whatever they want. If you simply *have* to eat high calorie meals every single day or you're not "happy" or "satisfied", AND you have weight loss goals, then you're obviously undermining yourself. There's another mental issue going on. Real, actual change is not easy and cannot be sugar-coated (har har har). It's a (very, VERY difficult) matter of training yourself (and flipping the switch) into a mode where you go "f**k my feelings, I know what's right" instead of justifying. But the action has to come first. One needs to act "as if" the switch has been flipped, and then the mental part will eventually follow.