Temperance, as you suggest, is a beautiful thing. It's hard (for me, especially), but sometimes we just have to put down the fork and politely decline that second, third, or fourth pancake.
I wasn't particularly overweight before but I attribute about ~10lbs of weight loss this year to realizing that:
- When at a dinner with family or friends, I never _have_ to finish something. Most of the time the host will be happy to package my leftovers to take back home when asked. That last part makes it clear that I like and appreciate the food even through I didn't finish it in the moment.
- If I buy food at a restaurant, I don't have an obligation to finish it to get my moneys worth. And again, I can just save it for another meal if I want.
- I don't have to eat snacks just because the host put them on a table at a party.
For some reason our brains think that just because food is _there_ we need to eat it, but that's generally not true.
I don’t actually think temperance and logic like this moves the needle significantly for obese people. When you’re obese you need to lose 50, 70, 100+ lbs, not 10. You’re looking at fundamentally changing relationship with food at multiple levels to the point where it’s unrecognizable. I don’t think small changes in habit like this are in the same ballpark as what obese people need to become a normal weight, in the same way that I don’t think taking the stairs instead of the elevator is in the same ballpark as someone who wants to become a professional athlete.
> When you’re obese you need to lose 50, 70, 100+ lbs, not 10.
You have to lose 10 at some point. The way you're putting it, it looks like losing weight would be some kind of drastic sprint with a finish line. I don't think it can happen that way. You have to lose weight and continuing changing your habit to lose 10 more, and the others 10 after, until it stabilises at healthy weight, then you start your healthy life, but it's not a finish line, the effort continues by fighting unhealthy habit for the rest of your life.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the same tricks will work for everyone. I've never been chronically obese so I wouldn't know what goes on in someone's mind at that point.
However I do know that it moved the needle significantly in _my_ life by changing my relationship with food so it's valuable to me. Losing the extra ~10 to 20 lbs of weight people gain in adulthood is something that people do struggle with even if it's not as dramatic as someone fighting obesity.
I've seen a handful people close to me go from 100lb+ overweight to a more comfortable 10 to 20 (or 50). And I think what GP described is a fundamental change to the relationship with food: You're (consciously at first) changing the definition of what needs to be consumed vs what is being consumed without need. They've all from what I've observed gone through this change.
They said that when you're really big, the first 10 lbs is the easiest to lose, and can come from taking stairs and changing snack habits. It's the last 10 lbs that requires the diligent workouts and very strict diets.
Indeed, walking punches way over expectations for keeping weight off. You have to do a good hour of a walk, but an hour walking is probably better than a rushed workout of similar time.
Good on you! Something I preach to my children is that success comes from showing up every day to do a little and not from a sudden burst of a lot. Well done.
I turn 50 this year and have committed to doing 50,000 pushups before 2024. It sounds like a lot, but after the first month, doing 200-300 a day isn't really that difficult (when broken up into smaller sets). Honestly, it's a LOT more of a mental challenge than a physical challenge.
Sunk cost fallacy. You aren't getting that $7.50 back. The question should actually be "do I want to, for no reason at all, feel like shit for the rest of the evening?"
(This assumes you aren't deriving any pleasure or utility from eating that last 25%. If you are, then that's one side of the cost/benefit analysis. But the initial cost of the food is irrelevant not matter what.)
Yeah. I suppose sunk cost fallacy here would be "I should eat it all to avoid wasting money." I guess you're sort of actually psychologizing OUT of that. It's still a bit fallacious, since the correct cost of the decision to not eat is actually $0, not $7.50, but I guess lying to yourself about that could be a useful mental trick.
Indeed. I doubt anyone ever got fat by eating food they didn't like.
The issue becomes all the worse when food is designed to make you want to keep on eating. Bonus points for it giving you that sort of hunger-like feeling 2 hours after your meal.
I realize everyone has different dietary needs, so I'm not saying this is for everyone, but it's very, very rare for me to finish a meal at a restaurant in one sitting. I used to, but leaving and feeling stuffed got old.
I've found if I stop early, it turns out it was only my brain that wanted more food. Physically, I've had enough and am satisfied. I just need to give my brain time to catch up to my body.
Additionally, I drink a lot of water with my meals. This helps prevent overeating.
Lastly, it's always great to get two meals (dinner and tomorrow's lunch) from one restaurant dinner.
And in general it's easier to have the snacks simply not be there, than to try to resist eating them. The habit of having random food and snacks lying around the house for 'just in case' is not a good one if you care about your health or weight. Unless of course you are actually required to eat frequently due to medical conditions.
