Here's where i have to make a confession -- i've got my selfish side! ;-) In defense, we HAVE to take care of ourselves primarily, because 1) what others think is right for "everyone" usually isn't, even if you're confident they have your best interests at heart; and 2) we can't do what we need to do, which includes unselfish acts, unless we ourselves are functional, which requires taking care of ourselves first, which is ... selfish...?
For two weeks now, i've been in company with a lot of people, which is completely opposite of the position i was in, this time last year. Without all the distractions and the need to cooperate with the "food desires" of other people, it was comparatively easy to determine and define what is best for myself. I found how to pretty-much eat optimally for my own health, well-being, energy and weight control when i spent a lot of time by myself. That plan is VERY hard to pursue when other people are added to the mix.
There's a big range in how much people use food for "entertainment" purposes. Some get up in the morning and the first thing they think of is "what can i eat today?" Some "get bored" by a diet of limited variety, no matter how nutritionally replete it is. Some treasure their sweets* and treats to the point that they seriously endanger their well-being for the sake of sensual enjoyment. To me, these notions range from "unworthy" to just plain loony. Planning meals for them and otherwise catering to their amusement gets problematic; it's hard to accommodate everyone's absolute needs, let alone please them.
Being around people with that "chow down" philosophy is difficult for those of us who would rather eat simply and eat less -- even more so when we need to cook for them! Supplying meals for those with different requirements is a constant temptation to err. Effort expended (energy requirements thus changed) and stress add to the difficulty. As an OCCASIONAL thing, one little trick has occurred to me, and it is exemplified by the starch-apologists' darlings, the Kitavans. (Of course, if one is diabetic or pre-diabetic what works adequately for ME is off the table -- pun intended).
I pig out at supper, and if it's safe-carb-heavy i don't worry about it. It WILL be stored as fat, being in excess of what my body would currently use. Sometime during the night my body will switch from glucose-burning to fat/ketone burning, as i have reestablished metabolic flexibility through habitual LCHF eating. Then, i don't have anything but coffee for breakfast. At lunch, i continue to go heavy on the fat and have as little protein as will get me through. Nicotine gum is occasionally helpful to tide me over till everybody else is ready for their regularly-scheduled meal. Lather, rinse, repeat. One glucose spike a day, and the rest of the time one is running on a fat/ketone fuel system, consisting of one's own body fat.
It's not something i'd want to do as a regular policy. I do so well on an ultra-low-carb diet of fatty meat two or three times a day, and i feel so good on it! But long trips and houseguests happen. I've discovered that this little trick helps me cope.
* In the case of sweets-loving, i think a lot of blame belongs on the shoulders of nutritionists (as bribed by their corporate sponsors) who say that sugar is harmless in moderation. DEFINE MODERATION. At what point does that frequent glucose spike stop being harmless and start promoting diabetes, cancer, heart disease and brain damage? What, you don't know?!? Maybe you'll use the onset of serious overweight as a sign of damage -- but that doesn't help all the lean people who (SURPRISE) develop all these illnesses....
Some also say that life is too short to deny oneself dessert, as a prime example. To this i would counter, life is too short to spend the last few years of it feeling like shit! I think it's worth a little privation to promote good health further down the line -- wellness is more important to me than sugar. Limiting cookies, candy, chips, potatoes, bread, desserts ... boohoo! Frankly, i think that NOT limiting them and then having to spend one's last years incapacitated is what life is too short for -- excuse my grammar. ;-)