Is it better to completely avoid "trigger foods" or factor in a little?

[jasper]

For all you dieters. Is it best to completely cut out your worst weakness (be it chocolate, wine, crisps, bread or whatever) in order to lose weight / stay slim ?
I am coming round to thinking this. Seems I am ok so long as I avoid sugar and alcohol but either one sometimes can trigger a bout of reckless eating. I have had success following weightwatchers for the last three years but it is a constant struggle.

Up till now I have allowed myself a little of my favourite foods but am seriously wondering whether it would be easier to have none at all. Anyone tried this?

yes i always found it easier to cut out rather than cut down - it really is best not to have a taster if you can help it.

I always seem to fail when I cut out my favourites altogether. Too many feelings of deprivation. My thing is chocolate and I have it everyday but have just switched to lower point ones like Crunchies! Hurrah for them!

Many times in the past I have gone on a strict diet and it seems that if I tell myself I am not eating any chocolate, I find myself eating it at the first possible opportunity.

However, seems like you have plenty of experience of what works and doesn't work for you so maybe giving cutting out a try might be a useful exercise.

Message withdrawn

I find it best to avoid trigger foods as for a just little bit always leads to a whole lot more.

I find that if I abstain from choc & sugar, I don't even want any, and feel better for it.

I'm a weight watcher and have been at target for about a year and a half. I don't think you should deny yourself anything as you will treat it as "forbidden" and then crave it. I think anything in moderation is good. If you ban foods then you will want them more.

I maintain my weight by "dieting" during the week and eating anything I want at weekends. I've learnt that you can't eat "normally" and be slim. I still eat what I want and don't feel guilty, as long as its at the weekend.

Message withdrawn