mccindy72 wrote: » sandryc79 wrote: » APeacefulWarrior wrote: » I'm sensing the overall feeling is put up and shut up until the EMT's come to pick one of us up. (I know there are a couple people who have a better understanding of why I'm so upset - I realize that doesn't represent you) So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too. If I witnessed my SO drinking a bottle of poison I would call 911, take it away if I could and use the law to put them on suicide watch. If they were determined to kill themselves I ultimately could do nothing to prevent them. You have a right to feel however you like about his food choices and a right to communicate those concerns. Ultimately though, you have no power to control his food. Unlike your poison analogy, there is no legal action you can take to force him not to eat oreos. It doesn't matter if you are right and he is wrong. He is an adult who is legally allowed to eat whatever foods he likes. If he chooses to disregard your concerns you have 3 choices. 1. Drive him mad with nagging that won't work anyway and be miserable anf angry about your inability to exert control over him. 2. Accepting you have no power to change him, role model healthy behavior in hopes he will change himself but accept it. 3. Leave him. If something really is a deal breaker no one is forcing you to stay in a relationship or provide him medical care in the future. Those are your only choices. You are picking #1 right now. You *want* a choice 4, some magical combination of either verbal or physical action taken by you that will change the man you are with into the man you want to be with. That just isn't realistic. That kind of transformation has to be come from him. He has to want it. 5. use communication to fix the relationship first, then communicate effectively about the eating and healthy lifestyle changes they want to make together.
sandryc79 wrote: » APeacefulWarrior wrote: » I'm sensing the overall feeling is put up and shut up until the EMT's come to pick one of us up. (I know there are a couple people who have a better understanding of why I'm so upset - I realize that doesn't represent you) So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too. If I witnessed my SO drinking a bottle of poison I would call 911, take it away if I could and use the law to put them on suicide watch. If they were determined to kill themselves I ultimately could do nothing to prevent them. You have a right to feel however you like about his food choices and a right to communicate those concerns. Ultimately though, you have no power to control his food. Unlike your poison analogy, there is no legal action you can take to force him not to eat oreos. It doesn't matter if you are right and he is wrong. He is an adult who is legally allowed to eat whatever foods he likes. If he chooses to disregard your concerns you have 3 choices. 1. Drive him mad with nagging that won't work anyway and be miserable anf angry about your inability to exert control over him. 2. Accepting you have no power to change him, role model healthy behavior in hopes he will change himself but accept it. 3. Leave him. If something really is a deal breaker no one is forcing you to stay in a relationship or provide him medical care in the future. Those are your only choices. You are picking #1 right now. You *want* a choice 4, some magical combination of either verbal or physical action taken by you that will change the man you are with into the man you want to be with. That just isn't realistic. That kind of transformation has to be come from him. He has to want it.
APeacefulWarrior wrote: » I'm sensing the overall feeling is put up and shut up until the EMT's come to pick one of us up. (I know there are a couple people who have a better understanding of why I'm so upset - I realize that doesn't represent you) So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too.
enterdanger wrote: » Not everyone's relationship dynamic is the same. Think about the couples you might know where one is more dominant and the other of the pair more submissive and it works. I'm not talking 50 shades of grey stuff here people. My grandparents were like that and open, honest communication would make them laugh. Their marriage worked for them. Yes, ultimately OP's husband decides what goes in his body. But when I put myself in her shoes I'd be damned if I let the father of my children think he could endanger his health that way. None of us are getting out of here alive, but I need him to be around for a long time. I would nag, cajole, bribe, do whatever I needed to do light a weight loss fire under his *kitten*.
mamapeach910 wrote: » jofjltncb6 wrote: » mccindy72 wrote: » Yeah, darlin, you're getting torn up over there too. Check it out. And... ...locked. 15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion. ...because Church of Sugar is Poison. The thread was actually going fairly well too. There wasn't much flaming. Are they not going to let any conversation like that happen on the boards any more?
jofjltncb6 wrote: » mccindy72 wrote: » Yeah, darlin, you're getting torn up over there too. Check it out. And... ...locked. 15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion. ...because Church of Sugar is Poison.
mccindy72 wrote: » Yeah, darlin, you're getting torn up over there too. Check it out.
15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion.
freeoscar wrote: » mamapeach910 wrote: » freeoscar wrote: » mccindy72 wrote: » gothchiq wrote: » APeacefulWarrior wrote: » I'm sensing the overall feeling is put up and shut up until the EMT's come to pick one of us up. (I know there are a couple people who have a better understanding of why I'm so upset - I realize that doesn't represent you) So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too. I understand perfectly. It's not like he's single. What he does affects your life very heavily as well as his own, and that matters. A marriage involves commitment, responsibility, and sometimes compromise, it does not mean going "lalalala i will do whatever i want regardless of the consequences because i am over 21 years old." When a person gets married, they supposedly accept the responsibility that their behavior greatly affects their spouse and that therefore they may have to make some compromises so as not to make that person's life miserable. You are accepting YOUR spousal responsibility in supporting him and trying to help him stick to the plans his doctor(s) laid out for him. Now he needs to accept his. Does he think you deserve to have to watch him die, and basically make yourself over into a home health nurse, for something he could easily avoid? Which is why they need to learn to communicate about the whole issue, not control each other or passively let each other do whatever, as so many have suggested. She can't control him by 'throwing everything out', or just let him blithely do whatever he wants. They need to sit down and discuss the situation rationally. Communication in any relationship is definitely the most important aspect. Yes, this is a marriage issue primarily. I mean, they had that rational discussion, and he went out and did something directly contradicting what they agreed to. That's not passive aggressive, that's just plain aggressive. I think counseling is in order. If they figure that part out, helping each other eat to plan is easy. You're not married, are you? Counseling, over something going differently than hoped after just one discussion? Counseling sounds like trying to force things to go "your way", more than a concern for the husband's health. Yes, I am married. If you approach counseling as one person 'winning' then no, it won't work. Done correctly it is a great way to facilitate communication when both sides feel as if they aren't being heard, which is the case here.
mamapeach910 wrote: » freeoscar wrote: » mccindy72 wrote: » gothchiq wrote: » APeacefulWarrior wrote: » I'm sensing the overall feeling is put up and shut up until the EMT's come to pick one of us up. (I know there are a couple people who have a better understanding of why I'm so upset - I realize that doesn't represent you) So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too. I understand perfectly. It's not like he's single. What he does affects your life very heavily as well as his own, and that matters. A marriage involves commitment, responsibility, and sometimes compromise, it does not mean going "lalalala i will do whatever i want regardless of the consequences because i am over 21 years old." When a person gets married, they supposedly accept the responsibility that their behavior greatly affects their spouse and that therefore they may have to make some compromises so as not to make that person's life miserable. You are accepting YOUR spousal responsibility in supporting him and trying to help him stick to the plans his doctor(s) laid out for him. Now he needs to accept his. Does he think you deserve to have to watch him die, and basically make yourself over into a home health nurse, for something he could easily avoid? Which is why they need to learn to communicate about the whole issue, not control each other or passively let each other do whatever, as so many have suggested. She can't control him by 'throwing everything out', or just let him blithely do whatever he wants. They need to sit down and discuss the situation rationally. Communication in any relationship is definitely the most important aspect. Yes, this is a marriage issue primarily. I mean, they had that rational discussion, and he went out and did something directly contradicting what they agreed to. That's not passive aggressive, that's just plain aggressive. I think counseling is in order. If they figure that part out, helping each other eat to plan is easy. You're not married, are you? Counseling, over something going differently than hoped after just one discussion? Counseling sounds like trying to force things to go "your way", more than a concern for the husband's health.
freeoscar wrote: » mccindy72 wrote: » gothchiq wrote: » APeacefulWarrior wrote: » I'm sensing the overall feeling is put up and shut up until the EMT's come to pick one of us up. (I know there are a couple people who have a better understanding of why I'm so upset - I realize that doesn't represent you) So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too. I understand perfectly. It's not like he's single. What he does affects your life very heavily as well as his own, and that matters. A marriage involves commitment, responsibility, and sometimes compromise, it does not mean going "lalalala i will do whatever i want regardless of the consequences because i am over 21 years old." When a person gets married, they supposedly accept the responsibility that their behavior greatly affects their spouse and that therefore they may have to make some compromises so as not to make that person's life miserable. You are accepting YOUR spousal responsibility in supporting him and trying to help him stick to the plans his doctor(s) laid out for him. Now he needs to accept his. Does he think you deserve to have to watch him die, and basically make yourself over into a home health nurse, for something he could easily avoid? Which is why they need to learn to communicate about the whole issue, not control each other or passively let each other do whatever, as so many have suggested. She can't control him by 'throwing everything out', or just let him blithely do whatever he wants. They need to sit down and discuss the situation rationally. Communication in any relationship is definitely the most important aspect. Yes, this is a marriage issue primarily. I mean, they had that rational discussion, and he went out and did something directly contradicting what they agreed to. That's not passive aggressive, that's just plain aggressive. I think counseling is in order. If they figure that part out, helping each other eat to plan is easy.
mccindy72 wrote: » gothchiq wrote: » APeacefulWarrior wrote: » I'm sensing the overall feeling is put up and shut up until the EMT's come to pick one of us up. (I know there are a couple people who have a better understanding of why I'm so upset - I realize that doesn't represent you) So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too. I understand perfectly. It's not like he's single. What he does affects your life very heavily as well as his own, and that matters. A marriage involves commitment, responsibility, and sometimes compromise, it does not mean going "lalalala i will do whatever i want regardless of the consequences because i am over 21 years old." When a person gets married, they supposedly accept the responsibility that their behavior greatly affects their spouse and that therefore they may have to make some compromises so as not to make that person's life miserable. You are accepting YOUR spousal responsibility in supporting him and trying to help him stick to the plans his doctor(s) laid out for him. Now he needs to accept his. Does he think you deserve to have to watch him die, and basically make yourself over into a home health nurse, for something he could easily avoid? Which is why they need to learn to communicate about the whole issue, not control each other or passively let each other do whatever, as so many have suggested. She can't control him by 'throwing everything out', or just let him blithely do whatever he wants. They need to sit down and discuss the situation rationally. Communication in any relationship is definitely the most important aspect.
gothchiq wrote: » APeacefulWarrior wrote: » I'm sensing the overall feeling is put up and shut up until the EMT's come to pick one of us up. (I know there are a couple people who have a better understanding of why I'm so upset - I realize that doesn't represent you) So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too. I understand perfectly. It's not like he's single. What he does affects your life very heavily as well as his own, and that matters. A marriage involves commitment, responsibility, and sometimes compromise, it does not mean going "lalalala i will do whatever i want regardless of the consequences because i am over 21 years old." When a person gets married, they supposedly accept the responsibility that their behavior greatly affects their spouse and that therefore they may have to make some compromises so as not to make that person's life miserable. You are accepting YOUR spousal responsibility in supporting him and trying to help him stick to the plans his doctor(s) laid out for him. Now he needs to accept his. Does he think you deserve to have to watch him die, and basically make yourself over into a home health nurse, for something he could easily avoid?
jofjltncb6 wrote: » MrM27 wrote: » Chrysalid2014 wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » kimondo666 wrote: » Try to persuade him if he has sweettooth that he eats raw fruit, and not zero nutrient refined sugar in sweets. Bananas are a whole lot better, or apples. Even dried fruits are much better. i fail to see the correlation between a sweet tooth and eating raw foods….. Er... raw fruit is sweet..(?) ndj1979 wrote: » and source of sugar does not matter... I read something yesterday about why fruit sugar is "better" than added sugar in other carbohydrate-loaded foods. Apparently the digestion of sugar requires certain micronutrients that are also delivered in fresh fruit. However, if you eat (for example) a candy bar, it doesn't contain any of the vitamins required to digest it, so essentially by eating the candy bar you're dipping into (depleting) your reserve of micronutrients. So, the logic that you can get your day's nutrition and then spend any 'leftover' calories on junk without detriment to your health is somewhat flawed... 3rd request for a link to the article you are saying you read. APeacefulWarrior wrote: » Just a morning update - I'll be reading through all the responses through the day,.. all four packages of Oreos have been opened and at least 2 cookies are gone from each. The packages will be finished within a week, I'm guessing. As for addictions - food can be just as deadly an addiction as drugs, if not more so because you can't give it up completely like drugs or alcohol. Not our first discussion by far - in fact he has gone to drastic extremes (WLS) which failed because he believed his gastric band would fix everything with no effort on his part. Age does make a difference - the body does not recover as well from stressors and is much more prone to serious effects. So, to those of you in your 20s and 30s - make changes now. It will be much harder to lose it later. I'll be back after work - keep this discussion rolling... Did you ask him why he opened 4 different packages? This is the greatest problem I've read so far in this thread. That is crazy talk. If there's going to be an intervention, it should be for this egregious violation.
MrM27 wrote: » Chrysalid2014 wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » kimondo666 wrote: » Try to persuade him if he has sweettooth that he eats raw fruit, and not zero nutrient refined sugar in sweets. Bananas are a whole lot better, or apples. Even dried fruits are much better. i fail to see the correlation between a sweet tooth and eating raw foods….. Er... raw fruit is sweet..(?) ndj1979 wrote: » and source of sugar does not matter... I read something yesterday about why fruit sugar is "better" than added sugar in other carbohydrate-loaded foods. Apparently the digestion of sugar requires certain micronutrients that are also delivered in fresh fruit. However, if you eat (for example) a candy bar, it doesn't contain any of the vitamins required to digest it, so essentially by eating the candy bar you're dipping into (depleting) your reserve of micronutrients. So, the logic that you can get your day's nutrition and then spend any 'leftover' calories on junk without detriment to your health is somewhat flawed... 3rd request for a link to the article you are saying you read. APeacefulWarrior wrote: » Just a morning update - I'll be reading through all the responses through the day,.. all four packages of Oreos have been opened and at least 2 cookies are gone from each. The packages will be finished within a week, I'm guessing. As for addictions - food can be just as deadly an addiction as drugs, if not more so because you can't give it up completely like drugs or alcohol. Not our first discussion by far - in fact he has gone to drastic extremes (WLS) which failed because he believed his gastric band would fix everything with no effort on his part. Age does make a difference - the body does not recover as well from stressors and is much more prone to serious effects. So, to those of you in your 20s and 30s - make changes now. It will be much harder to lose it later. I'll be back after work - keep this discussion rolling... Did you ask him why he opened 4 different packages?
Chrysalid2014 wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » kimondo666 wrote: » Try to persuade him if he has sweettooth that he eats raw fruit, and not zero nutrient refined sugar in sweets. Bananas are a whole lot better, or apples. Even dried fruits are much better. i fail to see the correlation between a sweet tooth and eating raw foods….. Er... raw fruit is sweet..(?) ndj1979 wrote: » and source of sugar does not matter... I read something yesterday about why fruit sugar is "better" than added sugar in other carbohydrate-loaded foods. Apparently the digestion of sugar requires certain micronutrients that are also delivered in fresh fruit. However, if you eat (for example) a candy bar, it doesn't contain any of the vitamins required to digest it, so essentially by eating the candy bar you're dipping into (depleting) your reserve of micronutrients. So, the logic that you can get your day's nutrition and then spend any 'leftover' calories on junk without detriment to your health is somewhat flawed...
ndj1979 wrote: » kimondo666 wrote: » Try to persuade him if he has sweettooth that he eats raw fruit, and not zero nutrient refined sugar in sweets. Bananas are a whole lot better, or apples. Even dried fruits are much better. i fail to see the correlation between a sweet tooth and eating raw foods…..
kimondo666 wrote: » Try to persuade him if he has sweettooth that he eats raw fruit, and not zero nutrient refined sugar in sweets. Bananas are a whole lot better, or apples. Even dried fruits are much better.
ndj1979 wrote: » and source of sugar does not matter...
APeacefulWarrior wrote: » Just a morning update - I'll be reading through all the responses through the day,.. all four packages of Oreos have been opened and at least 2 cookies are gone from each. The packages will be finished within a week, I'm guessing. As for addictions - food can be just as deadly an addiction as drugs, if not more so because you can't give it up completely like drugs or alcohol. Not our first discussion by far - in fact he has gone to drastic extremes (WLS) which failed because he believed his gastric band would fix everything with no effort on his part. Age does make a difference - the body does not recover as well from stressors and is much more prone to serious effects. So, to those of you in your 20s and 30s - make changes now. It will be much harder to lose it later. I'll be back after work - keep this discussion rolling...
janejellyroll wrote: » jofjltncb6 wrote: » MrM27 wrote: » Chrysalid2014 wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » kimondo666 wrote: » Try to persuade him if he has sweettooth that he eats raw fruit, and not zero nutrient refined sugar in sweets. Bananas are a whole lot better, or apples. Even dried fruits are much better. i fail to see the correlation between a sweet tooth and eating raw foods….. Er... raw fruit is sweet..(?) ndj1979 wrote: » and source of sugar does not matter... I read something yesterday about why fruit sugar is "better" than added sugar in other carbohydrate-loaded foods. Apparently the digestion of sugar requires certain micronutrients that are also delivered in fresh fruit. However, if you eat (for example) a candy bar, it doesn't contain any of the vitamins required to digest it, so essentially by eating the candy bar you're dipping into (depleting) your reserve of micronutrients. So, the logic that you can get your day's nutrition and then spend any 'leftover' calories on junk without detriment to your health is somewhat flawed... 3rd request for a link to the article you are saying you read. APeacefulWarrior wrote: » Just a morning update - I'll be reading through all the responses through the day,.. all four packages of Oreos have been opened and at least 2 cookies are gone from each. The packages will be finished within a week, I'm guessing. As for addictions - food can be just as deadly an addiction as drugs, if not more so because you can't give it up completely like drugs or alcohol. Not our first discussion by far - in fact he has gone to drastic extremes (WLS) which failed because he believed his gastric band would fix everything with no effort on his part. Age does make a difference - the body does not recover as well from stressors and is much more prone to serious effects. So, to those of you in your 20s and 30s - make changes now. It will be much harder to lose it later. I'll be back after work - keep this discussion rolling... Did you ask him why he opened 4 different packages? This is the greatest problem I've read so far in this thread. That is crazy talk. If there's going to be an intervention, it should be for this egregious violation. No joke. I don't care if my husband wants to eat cookies, but I'm not gonna have multiple open containers of the same thing in my house.
jofjltncb6 wrote: » mamapeach910 wrote: » jofjltncb6 wrote: » mccindy72 wrote: » Yeah, darlin, you're getting torn up over there too. Check it out. And... ...locked. 15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion. ...because Church of Sugar is Poison. The thread was actually going fairly well too. There wasn't much flaming. Are they not going to let any conversation like that happen on the boards any more? They will... ...but only on the Premium side.
MrM27 wrote: » freeoscar wrote: » mamapeach910 wrote: » freeoscar wrote: » mccindy72 wrote: » gothchiq wrote: » APeacefulWarrior wrote: » I'm sensing the overall feeling is put up and shut up until the EMT's come to pick one of us up. (I know there are a couple people who have a better understanding of why I'm so upset - I realize that doesn't represent you) So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too. I understand perfectly. It's not like he's single. What he does affects your life very heavily as well as his own, and that matters. A marriage involves commitment, responsibility, and sometimes compromise, it does not mean going "lalalala i will do whatever i want regardless of the consequences because i am over 21 years old." When a person gets married, they supposedly accept the responsibility that their behavior greatly affects their spouse and that therefore they may have to make some compromises so as not to make that person's life miserable. You are accepting YOUR spousal responsibility in supporting him and trying to help him stick to the plans his doctor(s) laid out for him. Now he needs to accept his. Does he think you deserve to have to watch him die, and basically make yourself over into a home health nurse, for something he could easily avoid? Which is why they need to learn to communicate about the whole issue, not control each other or passively let each other do whatever, as so many have suggested. She can't control him by 'throwing everything out', or just let him blithely do whatever he wants. They need to sit down and discuss the situation rationally. Communication in any relationship is definitely the most important aspect. Yes, this is a marriage issue primarily. I mean, they had that rational discussion, and he went out and did something directly contradicting what they agreed to. That's not passive aggressive, that's just plain aggressive. I think counseling is in order. If they figure that part out, helping each other eat to plan is easy. You're not married, are you? Counseling, over something going differently than hoped after just one discussion? Counseling sounds like trying to force things to go "your way", more than a concern for the husband's health. Yes, I am married. If you approach counseling as one person 'winning' then no, it won't work. Done correctly it is a great way to facilitate communication when both sides feel as if they aren't being heard, which is the case here. I might come across someone saying what I'm about to say as I read the next page but as far as both side feeling as they are being heard I agree but just because you express something to your partner does not mean that person must oblige.
So essentially, if you witnessed your spouse or significant other downing a bottle of poison, you'd just sit back ( or join them) and say "hey, he (or she) is an adult and if they want to finish off that poison, well then, that's their right."? That doesn't seem very loving, concerned or compassionate, but maybe that's where we are as a society... accepting and then sticking your head in the sand to ignore seems to be the expectation. Not sure I can be on board with that, but I think that's what he expects of me too.
wizzybeth wrote: » jofjltncb6 wrote: » MrM27 wrote: » Chrysalid2014 wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » kimondo666 wrote: » Try to persuade him if he has sweettooth that he eats raw fruit, and not zero nutrient refined sugar in sweets. Bananas are a whole lot better, or apples. Even dried fruits are much better. i fail to see the correlation between a sweet tooth and eating raw foods….. Er... raw fruit is sweet..(?) ndj1979 wrote: » and source of sugar does not matter... I read something yesterday about why fruit sugar is "better" than added sugar in other carbohydrate-loaded foods. Apparently the digestion of sugar requires certain micronutrients that are also delivered in fresh fruit. However, if you eat (for example) a candy bar, it doesn't contain any of the vitamins required to digest it, so essentially by eating the candy bar you're dipping into (depleting) your reserve of micronutrients. So, the logic that you can get your day's nutrition and then spend any 'leftover' calories on junk without detriment to your health is somewhat flawed... 3rd request for a link to the article you are saying you read. APeacefulWarrior wrote: » Just a morning update - I'll be reading through all the responses through the day,.. all four packages of Oreos have been opened and at least 2 cookies are gone from each. The packages will be finished within a week, I'm guessing. As for addictions - food can be just as deadly an addiction as drugs, if not more so because you can't give it up completely like drugs or alcohol. Not our first discussion by far - in fact he has gone to drastic extremes (WLS) which failed because he believed his gastric band would fix everything with no effort on his part. Age does make a difference - the body does not recover as well from stressors and is much more prone to serious effects. So, to those of you in your 20s and 30s - make changes now. It will be much harder to lose it later. I'll be back after work - keep this discussion rolling... Did you ask him why he opened 4 different packages? This is the greatest problem I've read so far in this thread. That is crazy talk. If there's going to be an intervention, it should be for this egregious violation. My thought was that he came home with 4 different kinds of Oreos: there are a bunch of different varieties now..golden, traditional, strawberry, chocolate center, etc.
jofjltncb6 wrote: » wizzybeth wrote: » jofjltncb6 wrote: » MrM27 wrote: » Chrysalid2014 wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » kimondo666 wrote: » Try to persuade him if he has sweettooth that he eats raw fruit, and not zero nutrient refined sugar in sweets. Bananas are a whole lot better, or apples. Even dried fruits are much better. i fail to see the correlation between a sweet tooth and eating raw foods….. Er... raw fruit is sweet..(?) ndj1979 wrote: » and source of sugar does not matter... I read something yesterday about why fruit sugar is "better" than added sugar in other carbohydrate-loaded foods. Apparently the digestion of sugar requires certain micronutrients that are also delivered in fresh fruit. However, if you eat (for example) a candy bar, it doesn't contain any of the vitamins required to digest it, so essentially by eating the candy bar you're dipping into (depleting) your reserve of micronutrients. So, the logic that you can get your day's nutrition and then spend any 'leftover' calories on junk without detriment to your health is somewhat flawed... 3rd request for a link to the article you are saying you read. APeacefulWarrior wrote: » Just a morning update - I'll be reading through all the responses through the day,.. all four packages of Oreos have been opened and at least 2 cookies are gone from each. The packages will be finished within a week, I'm guessing. As for addictions - food can be just as deadly an addiction as drugs, if not more so because you can't give it up completely like drugs or alcohol. Not our first discussion by far - in fact he has gone to drastic extremes (WLS) which failed because he believed his gastric band would fix everything with no effort on his part. Age does make a difference - the body does not recover as well from stressors and is much more prone to serious effects. So, to those of you in your 20s and 30s - make changes now. It will be much harder to lose it later. I'll be back after work - keep this discussion rolling... Did you ask him why he opened 4 different packages? This is the greatest problem I've read so far in this thread. That is crazy talk. If there's going to be an intervention, it should be for this egregious violation. My thought was that he came home with 4 different kinds of Oreos: there are a bunch of different varieties now..golden, traditional, strawberry, chocolate center, etc. Lies. There is only One True Oreo™*. To say otherwise is blasphemous. * Double stuffed. Original Oreos are more properly called "half stuffed"...or "Oreos Lite"...or "diet Oreos".
fallenoaks4 wrote: » janejellyroll wrote: » jofjltncb6 wrote: » MrM27 wrote: » Chrysalid2014 wrote: » ndj1979 wrote: » kimondo666 wrote: » Try to persuade him if he has sweettooth that he eats raw fruit, and not zero nutrient refined sugar in sweets. Bananas are a whole lot better, or apples. Even dried fruits are much better. i fail to see the correlation between a sweet tooth and eating raw foods….. Er... raw fruit is sweet..(?) ndj1979 wrote: » and source of sugar does not matter... I read something yesterday about why fruit sugar is "better" than added sugar in other carbohydrate-loaded foods. Apparently the digestion of sugar requires certain micronutrients that are also delivered in fresh fruit. However, if you eat (for example) a candy bar, it doesn't contain any of the vitamins required to digest it, so essentially by eating the candy bar you're dipping into (depleting) your reserve of micronutrients. So, the logic that you can get your day's nutrition and then spend any 'leftover' calories on junk without detriment to your health is somewhat flawed... 3rd request for a link to the article you are saying you read. APeacefulWarrior wrote: » Just a morning update - I'll be reading through all the responses through the day,.. all four packages of Oreos have been opened and at least 2 cookies are gone from each. The packages will be finished within a week, I'm guessing. As for addictions - food can be just as deadly an addiction as drugs, if not more so because you can't give it up completely like drugs or alcohol. Not our first discussion by far - in fact he has gone to drastic extremes (WLS) which failed because he believed his gastric band would fix everything with no effort on his part. Age does make a difference - the body does not recover as well from stressors and is much more prone to serious effects. So, to those of you in your 20s and 30s - make changes now. It will be much harder to lose it later. I'll be back after work - keep this discussion rolling... Did you ask him why he opened 4 different packages? This is the greatest problem I've read so far in this thread. That is crazy talk. If there's going to be an intervention, it should be for this egregious violation. No joke. I don't care if my husband wants to eat cookies, but I'm not gonna have multiple open containers of the same thing in my house. Perhaps they are different flavors of Oreos. And she did say they would likely be gone within the week. No chance to go stale.
MrM27 wrote: » [I guess I missed this post above. I've seen some really bad analogies here on MFP but that one has to be one of the most far out ones yet.
