Down with HFCS!

[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.

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?

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Around Passover Coke releases Coke with real sugar (Kosher for Passover)

This is especially good to know for those of you, like myself, who add their own sugar to Coke.

[Not Afraid]

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.

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 think my hard ass stance has more to do with IF you are overweight because you eat when you feel _______, do it regularly and have the obese body to show for it.

I think everyone eats poorly on occasion or eats for the "wrong reasons" just as everyone gets drunk once in a while. But, if you're are the type of person who regularly eats or drinks because of some "feeling", then you have to deal with things a little differently - and much more hard core.

Surprisingly, it doesn't take that much to be considered obese. For me, if I weighed a mere 30 pounds more, I would be considered obese. Thirty pounds! you say, but I have been there before. Thirty pounds either direction has never been much for my frame. You hardly notice the 20 I've lost. Looking at BMI, I tend to fare far worse.

If I didn't have a problem drinking alcohol, I would probably read what i wrote and tell myself I was full of shyt (and it would probably be a great excuse to get drunk!). However, I've run the gauntlet and know it to be true for me.

[Chernabog]

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?

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.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Are you familiar with the Transtheoretical Model?

1. Precontemplation - lack of awareness that life can be improved by a change in behavior;
2. Contemplation - recognition of the problem, initial consideration of behavior change, and information gathering about possible solutions and actions;
3. Preparation - introspection about the decision, reaffirmation of the need and desire to change behavior, and completion of final pre-action steps;
4. Action - implementation of the practices needed for successful behavior change (e.g. exercise class attendance);
5. Maintenance - consolidation of the behaviors initiated during the action stage;
6. Termination - former problem behaviors are no longer perceived as desirable (e.g. skipping a run results in frustration rather than pleasure).

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Actually, it is more like turning on a switch, but one that you turn to the "on" position many times. It usually does get easier but it is rarely, if ever perfected. It takes daily manipulation of said switch.

this would be the Maintenance stage.

[Not Afraid]

Interesting model. I find that it's really easy to get stuck with steps 1-3 and never move to 4,5 and 6. It always seems to be much easier to intellectualize about changes then to actually make them.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

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?

Yes, it does. My point was more general, regarding willpower and resolve vs. real world realities. Yes, if the goal was exercise, this would be a cop out, as there are other ways to achieve exercise. My goals with biking are various - exercise, saving gas money, saving wear and tear on my very old car, getting rideshare credit at work (which gives me extra cash and vacation time), helping the environment, helping traffic. So for me, it does kind of suck to not bike, but I don't feel like a failure if I skip winter.

I really like the Model - I think it's completely true regarding change. NA's right, it's way easy to talk about things!

I'm rather interested in all this at the moment since I'm building myself up for action regarding my eating habits. No, it's not about weight loss, it's about blood sugar stability. I'm always on highs and lows and it looks like my 30's are going to be less tolerant for that. Yes, NA, I'm not "faking until I make it" just yet, but I swear, it'll be soon.

[Peachy Keen]

Anyone interested in the topic of psychological factors behind our eating habits should read "Mindless Eating" by Brian Wansink, it's a great, insightful book. Most everything he says is dead on, it's a real eye-opener, even if you think he won't have anything new to say.

BTW, it is true you can't stop eating "cold turkey", but I suppose you could quit refined sugars that way. Not a bad idea really.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Mindless eating is one of my downfalls.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

Mindless eating is one of my downfalls.

You should always try to eat a mind at least once a day.