Quitting smoking was very hard for me. I think I was able to do it though because I didn't have to smoke anything where as with eating you still have to eat. It would be so much easier if you didn't huh?! LOL My husband & I quit together & we are both so competitive neither of us wanted to be the 1st to fail...on that note I challenged him tonight to see who could eat better....He said he could so I'm hoping it's on!

I am RIGHT with you on those, DixC!

If I think "never again" about once-favorite foods, I feel miserable and deprived in ways that I certainly don't about swearing off of cigarettes. I don't believe for a minute that you or I used up all our willpower; there's just a lot more at work when it comes to food.

Cigarettes are unequivocally bad for us and we don't need them to survive. Alcohol is bad for us in quantity and we don't need it to survive. Food...food's vital. We absolutely need it, so it can't be considered "bad" and therefore unavailable to us. We can maybe try to consider certain things off-limits, or acknowledge that they have unacceptable consequences, but it's hard-wired in us to like certain stuff.

Millions of years of evolution have taught us that sweet stuff with fat is good; hundreds of thousands of years of experience have taught us how to combine sweet stuff and fat into ever more potent and delectable configurations. When you look at it that way, standing up to that creme brulee is an impressive feat!

I get around the "never again" thing by telling myself, "Not now." I can live with "not now" in a way that I can't with "never again." "Not now" lets me pass on stuff without deprivation; "never again" makes me feel desperate and broken.

Bodies are weird and brains are weirder, I guess.

I always thought this too, and then I discovered that it is entirely possible to eat only the foods I have little to no problem with. I don't have to avoid all food, only the food that I don't control well.

Will I ever be able to successfully resist "perfectly?" That's not even my goal.

I just have to remember the effects of those foods, and remind myself that if I indulge, I have to take the consequences of those foods (just as I would with medications and alcohol).

It's a lot easier to avoid them entirely, than to try to have only a bite or too.

It's also not as much of a sacrifice as I expected it to be. The food I don't have control problems with, is still delicious food. Some foods are borderline, but safe enough to keep in my diet and work at moderation.

For example I have some issues with some fruit. With fruit, I do have to work at moderation, but moderation with fruit sugars is possible for me, whereas moderation with "Death by Chocolate," isn't.


It is entirely possible to avoid all or nearly all food triggers. Most people just aren't willing to. And most people probably don't have to, but a small number of us have to learn to be willing to, because we find it's the only thing that works.

Great points, and summary here. This whole thread is an interesting read.

I don't buy my trigger foods and keep them in my house because I know I won't be able to eat them in moderation. I just don't buy chips, chocolate, desserts anymore.

If I am craving a chocolate bar or a bag of chips, I will go to the corner store and buy them (rare these days). I will accept the consequences of my choices.

I will also accept the consequences of eating a slice of cake at my parents on the weekend. I told her lately, that it makes it hard for me when she always has sweets around when I'm there. I bet I'll get just fruit from now on (not that I'm complaining).

There are times when I give in to my cravings and buy a bag of chips, and I wonder why I'm doing it when I know they are not good for me. I guess out of habit, emotional eating..we turn to the foods that comfort us?

Sometimes I allow myself to eat a chocolate bar or a dessert, because I've been so good the rest of the time. I think that not having these trigger foods in the house help me in abstaining from them unless I buy them on a binge or craving.

I'm so in love with thread! I keep thinking about it, even when I'm not on 3FC, that's how you know it's super interesting!!!

I can't imagine anyone saying that abstaining from chocolate for the rest of your life is "unhealthy" i wouldn't suggest THAT ever, my only issue with all of this is that I haven't heard any mental health component that seemingly MUST go in tandem with this lifestyle choice?? Addictions are a serious business, if they aren't addressed in some form or another, they'll crop up somewhere else. If someone believes they can be addicted to a food item, then just quitting that food item won't 'solve' it permanently - something else will take its place.

And the nitty-gritty of implementing it - if you don't eat sugar, is life like that of a diabetic, having to check labels on every single item to be sure there's no sugar in it? like no ketchup or jam or bbq sauce, stuff like that? because even a little bit would 'count' right? No 'lite' foods because of the high sugar content etc., but weight must FALL off which is the upside no doubt!!

Totally agree with this. I sometimes wonder if the act of counting calories or points or grams is addictive. Much of my daily life involves buying, planning, evaluating, counting points. Have I substituted this for planning, buying, preparing crap food or binging?

Or does exercise becoming an addiction? It certainly releases brain chemicals that make me feel good. Am I substituting exercise classes to get the endorphins and stop getting the mind numbing affects of sedentary activities (TV, books, Sudoku, etc)?

Or is it in my belief system? I believe I can't get along without sugary desserts therefore I can't, i.e. self fulfilling prophecy. I believe weight loss is difficult, there for it is difficult for me.

Love this thread. Its making me think.

Hi, I'm new on this sub-forum

I don't have anything to add to the discussion right now, since people have thoroughly gone over both sides of moderation v. abstinence.

I just wanted to say thank you for really discussing this issue in such depth because it sounds like it is quite different for each individual. It gives me hope that I can find a way to pick a strategy that works for me (and one way or another isn't "wrong"). I always assumed I was a carb addict who must abstain, but I think I will look further into developing moderation. Even when I abstain from carbs/sugar, I really suffer during social situations and special occasions. If I could learn the complex skill of moderation, I think it would pay off for me, big time

I am too, it's one of the best conversations I've ever had on the subject.

I think you'ld be surprised. I only like chocolate during TOM. I'm just not a fan, and even when I would just turn down an offer of chocolate, people would tell me how healthy chocolate was, how I shouldn't deny myself the pleasure, all the health benefits I would get by ...

Chocolate pushing is relatively mild. Tell someone you're giving up most grains, and really see the uproar about "eliminating an entire food group." Even though humans lived quite well without grains for more than 90% of our existence, it's suddenly an "essential food group." Yet no one is concerned that we've eliminated the "food groups" of insects and organ meats (the "science" of nutritional food grouping is more art than science, as there are dozens of different systems in use in different cultures and scientific disciplines).




This is actually a myth. In extreme cases it's true. It's even common, but it's far from universal. Addiction is perhaps a poor word choice, because it's generally used too broadly, to describe everything from a person self-medicating with food/drugs/whatever as a result of deep underlying psychological problems, but also to describe mild to severe physical dependence issues which can be entirely physiological or present in the absence of "deep, underlying issues."

When I worked in probation and in substance abuse treatment, we used assesment tools to determine what type of treatment was needed. Not everyone who had abuse issues needed intense therapy. And not everyone who chose abstinence did so, because they needed intense therapy. There are a lot of good reasons for abstinence that don't involve underlying emotional issues.

For some drugs "it's illegal" is reason enough. For my trigger foods "because I gain weight and they makes me feel like crap" is reason enough.


There are many drugs (including caffeine, nicotine, and sugar) that will create physical and emotional dependence in anyone who takes them long enough in high enough doses, not just in people with underlying issues. For example, early studies of heroin (which would never be done in this day and age, because of ethical issues) found that at certain doses, it took only a few administrations of the drug to create physical and emotional dependency in more than 90% of test subjects (all of the subjects were deemed mentally fit before the study, and had no personal or family history of emotionaly problems or substance misuse).

One study in particular (done in 2007, I believe) found that refined sugar is actually more addictive than cocaine. Rats were given a choice between sugar water and cocaine, and 94% them chose sugar. Even the rats that had previously been addicted to cocaine switched to the sugar once it was a choice.






Actually no. "every bit would count?" is a myth even in substance abuse treatment. Vanilla, almond, mint and other flavor extracts have a significant alcohol content, but most alcoholics are able keep them in the house and use them appropriately. They can add vanilla extract to a milkshake, and not break "abstinence." There are some people who do choose to abstain even from flavoring extracts, but most don't have to.


The dependence potential of food, has very little to do with psychological instability or "deep, underlying issues." When it occurs, it's often pure physical dependency (lab rats don't have deep, underlying psychological issues that must be worked out in years of therapy). Sure, a person with underlying issues can become dependent upon food or other substances, but it's also possible to have purely physical dependency issues.


Books that were influential in my realizing that my "addiction" to food was primarily physical (I'm not saying that emotional issues weren't significant, there's just tremendous evidence that they were not primary)

Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories," David Kessler's, "The End of Overeating," and Barbara Berkeley's "Refuse to Regain"

Other books which I can't remember title and author, were books on autoimmune disease (and the link to grains and excessive carbohydrates in the diet), "ancestor" diet books like Neanderthin, Paleo Diet, Primal Blueprint, and other books critical of excess carbohydrate and grain consumption.

Probably, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. As with all dependency issues, consequences are the real issue. Even the goal substance abuse treatment is not to eliminate all habits, obsessions, and dependencies, it's to create positive habits, obsessions, and dependencies.

Substance use is a coping mechanism. And it's not always an unhealthy one. If you drink a glass of wine once in a great while to relax, that's not "addiction." It becomes a problem when the risks/damages outweigh the benefits.

When I worked in substance abuse treatment, 80% of the focuswas on helping the person find healthy ways to acheive the same benefits (s)he was getting from the substance.

so you're honestly saying you got close to 400 pounds because of 1 thing only? I'm not being flippant here, or trying to sound snotty, it's hard to use a 'sincerity font' but i mean it sincerely, that you honestly believe one thing and one thing only caused you to gain that much weight?


I'm editing my post, it's only going to encourage more argument and I don't want that! i'm respectfully agreeing to disagree, and wish everyone well and hope whatever path anyone takes is successful and sustainable!

Namaste! (wow I miss LOST!!!)

That's not at all what I'm saying, not in the least! I can name thousands of factors that went into my weight issues, and I'd bet that for every one I can name, there are ten or twenty that I'm not aware of. Anyone who thinks it's ever a one-cause problem, is seriously misguided. Anyone who thinks they understand every factor that went into their own (or anyone else's) weight issues, they're naive as well.


No one on the planet is obese because of one thing, or a dozen things, or even a hundred things. It's always far more complicated. At best, a person can expect to understand 10% of their issues. While there are thousands of causes for obesity, luckily each cause doesn't require a specialy tailored solution. There are fewer solutions than causes (thankfully, with thousands of issues, having to address each individually would be a nightmare).

What I am saying is that one specific factor did NOT cause my obesity - and that is "deep, underlying emotional problems." I spent a lifetime looking for them, not only going to counseling myself, but also making psychology my career choice, getting a BA and MA in psychology.

I never looked for physiological factors to weight loss, because I didn't think those issues were important. I figured that at best, they were out of my control, so the "mental" ones were all I could focus on, because I thought that all diets work equally well. I thought that low-carb diets were unhealthy and unsustainable, and impractical. Before "this time" I had never tried low-carb dieting for much more than a month (6 weeks or so at the most, probably), and every time in hindsight considered them a serious mistake.

I can't tell you all the causes of my obesity - I don't know them all, but I can say that where I've found my success, certainly does hint that physiological issues played a bigger role than I suspected (otherwise counseling and cognitive-behavioral therapy would have helped a lot more than birth control and low-carb eating).

My first clue pointing to physiology, occurred when I swore of crash dieting. In the 90's I encountered the Fat Acceptance movement and the idea that crash dieting actually contributed more to obesity than it helped. I decided that giving up dieting was worth a shot. I stopped crash dieting, and I stopped gaining weight (Wish my doctor and parents had discovered this for me at 5 years old (first crash diet), or 8 years old (first Weight Watcher's membership), or 13 years old (doctor prescribed amphetamine diet pills). My weight fluctuated between 350 and 360 (from which it was stable for three to four years, until I returned to dieting after a back injury (and regained to 375) and before my wedding (started at 375 and and gained to 394 - while on Weight Watchers
).

My second clue came when I finally chose to take birth control for my severe PMDD issues. From the time I was 9 or 10 and started my period in the 4th grade, my weight and hunger followed a very specific pattern. During the 7-10 days of PMS/TOM 7, I was insanely hungry, and the urge to binge was almost uncontrollable (I also didn't know that the foods I craved, were the ones most likely to fuel the hunger even further. Even as a 10 year old, if I had eaten a low-carb diet ONLY during those 7 - 10 days, my hunger would have been greatly diminished - but I didn't know that then. I didn't know that until three or four years ago). Those 7 - 1- days of non-stop hunger/binging, were followed by strict (often starvation) dieting for the remainder of the month to get off what I gained during "that week." If I was lucky, I could get the weight off in two weeks and have a one week "window of opportunity" to lose weight.

In hind sight, this was a really big clue that I had serious physiological issues. That every ounce of weight I gained from puberty onward, occurred during "that week" and the rest of the month I had no problem eating healthfully or following even a strict diet, should have been a bigger clue that there were hormonal issues going on. It's quite possible that if my pediatrician would have put me on birth control at 13, rather than amphetamine diet pills, I might never have exceeded my weight at the time (225 lbs).


And the third clue was the hunger-control of low-carb dieting. Between low-carb eating and birth control, I have never had this much control over hunger. As long as I'm eating cleanly, I'm never painfully hungry. I'm rarely even annoyingly hungry. Low-carb enough, and I can even "forget to eat" (which I never would have thought possible).

The effort I now put into weight loss is absolutely minimal compared to the effort I had to put in the past, just to keep from gaining. In the past, to succeed weight loss had to be 90% or more of my daily effort. There was little room for thoughts of anything else.


The "secrets" to my current success were well hidden, because they literally were in the last places I looked. I was so busy looking for emotional problems, that I (and apparently my parents and doctors) never thought to look for physiological ones.

But even though my obesity wasn't caused by one factor, only four relatively small changes were necessary to reverse it. 1. Refusing to crash diet, 2. oral contraceptives, 3. low-carb diet, 4. Refusing to be shamed away from being active in public (whether it's swimming, walking, biking, dancing or just existing).

and 5. social support (3FC and my TOPS group).



I listed #5 seperately, because it is an emotional/psychological factor, but it's also one I've acknowledged from the beginning. It isn't a "change" at all, because I've always sought out group support (since I was 8 years old and joined WW with my mother). More of my weight loss attempts than not, were made in the context of a weight loss group. I've always appreciated the support that a group can provide, whether it was Nutristystem, Weight Watcher's, OA, TOPS, weight loss bible studies...

So while I appreciate the helpfulness of group support, it's not sufficient for success.