Fed Up Documentary
Replies
-
I don't get sugar crashes. Probably because my body uses sugar to do awesome things like this:
0 -
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »Katie Couric is a visionary
LOLOLOLOL the comments are killing me, this one wins ^_^
*dead*
0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I don't get sugar crashes. Probably because my body uses sugar to do awesome things like this:
That's what an addict would say.0 -
SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »
Apparently, you are having some difficulty expressing yourself. What you seem to have meant to say is, "You must think that younger folks do not have to obey the rule of "calories in-calories out". But I did NOT say that. You, undoubtedly missed the subtlety of my remarks. I said that CICO operates well for many people--especially younger people. But, there is a significant problem in older people--particularly post-menopausal women, because the number of calories that supposedly make one be in "calorie deficit" are lower than what is typically thought (influenced by many factors--lean body mass, metabolism, sex hormones, etc) AND that the number of calories to put one in a REAL deficit ares smaller for most older women (and some older men) UNLESS a significant program of good nutrition and exercise is launched to build up lean body mass and increase metabolism.
0 -
Why don't you just ask them to come onto this thread and plead your case for you?
Most of my MFP friends eschew the general forums because there are so many aggressive people here. I find it amusing to venture in here when I am bored.
They will sometimes peek in here when I am here and report laughing at some of the interchanges.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »
All special snowflakes with high metabolisms and workout schedules that no one else wants to do/can do.
I am sincerely glad to hear that some women in their 60s are doing so well--but what would you describe as differing from me? CICO does work BUT (and this is a big exception) you must make certain that you are indeed in deficit, and there are many, many nutritional and exercise elements that influence calorie-burn. I cannot imagine why any of you have a problem with that.
0 -
thesupremeforce wrote: »
The reason is that she's obsessed with speaking for all post-menopausal women, even as she continues to insist that she's only speaking for herself. If they're not like her, it must be MAGIC (or aliens).
Why the hostility? I do not pretend to speak for all post-menopausal women and I am not one given to "obsessions". Why the insults? Ad hominems are the resort of those who have a weak response to opposing arguments.0 -
Which is a factor, but please do not assume that everyone else has your issues.
I do not. But many women do and I have compassion for those who are suffering because of a lack of information. When they have problems that are similar to mine, I try to give them advice that may help them to be successful.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
I do not. But many women do and I have compassion for those who are suffering because of a lack of information. When they have problems that are similar to mine, I try to give them advice that may help them to be successful.
Are you insinuating that I do not?
0 -
so after 60 the laws of math and physics cease to apply?
at the end of the day it is still CICO; however, you just may have to adjust the out side of the equation ….
I would disagree with the first statement and would agree with the second. I have always held that position. Some of you apparently have trouble interpreting what I have said.
0 -
There are 16 pages of this thread and after reading through the first 2 and not seeing any correction of 'worlded and twirled" to "whirled and twirled", I thought I"d put my 2 cents in.
My apologies if anyone on the other 14 pages corrected it before I did. It seems that everyone was correcting something about the original post and I felt the need to get on the bandwagon.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Sorry, but as usual, you're incorrect. Sugar has been cheap since the 1700s, and wass considered a necessary staple food by the 1800s.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I don't get sugar crashes. Probably because my body uses sugar to do awesome things like this:
I can turn sugar into 4 hours of marathon fun! I'm eating gingerbread toxins here
0 -
That;s a lot of assumptions. And again, I did/do very well with IIFYM.
Now, I am not disagreeing that post-menopausal women often do better on higher fat/higher protein and low'ish carbs. But you are making a very big leap there - the poster is losing weight and it is rather presumptuous to infer that she would do better using a different methodology. The biggest key to weight loss is adherence.
I'm sincerely happy for those who have had the luxury of eating whatever they chose IIFYM. I have many, many years of dieting behind me--losing, regaining, losing, regaining even more, etc. I never found calorie counting ALONE to be successful for any length of time. (Why do you think there is such a huge failure rate in keeping the body fat off?) For those like me, a multi-factorial approach is often the most successful and, with my current plan, I have avoided regain for the longest period in my adult life (four years) and my program is one that has yielded tremendous health benefits for me as well. I will be able to stay on this program for the rest of my life. I think the regain threads in the forums to be pretty sad and I just attempt to show people that there really is a different and better way FOR SOME PEOPLE who are experiencing a lot of failure. You can't count it successful, if you quickly regain what was lost as soon as you leave the low calorie plan. And the reason why many people leave the low calorie plan is because they are malnourished from only paying attention to "calories in - calories out".
0 -
Ok, going to address these one at a time.
I lost more than that, doing the same thing (except meat). And has been noted - I am 47. I lost the weight when I was 45/46.
But, no doubt you recognize that metabolism slows significantly with each decade of life?
0 -
This thread really blew up while I was out running. Honestly, I'm probably wasting my time running because 1.) I'm a man, 2.) I'm not menopausal, 3.) I'm in my twenties and 4.) I have a fast metabolism, therefore I can think about losing weight and poof it happens! Because science.
Well, you certainly win the "silly sarcasm" award.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
But, no doubt you recognize that metabolism slows significantly with each decade of life?
Yes, to a degree - but your BMR decreases by only by about 100 cals every 10 years.
The main issue is that we often get less active as we get older.
0 -
you are the one insulting woman of all ages by claiming those who are post menopausal can't lose weight via calorie deficit, and then turning around critiquing other woman that have had said success and then saying "oh that is because they are in their 40's"…..
I just turned your own argument against you …but I guess you do not like that...
Nonsensical argument.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
I'm sincerely happy for those who have had the luxury of eating whatever they chose IIFYM. I have many, many years of dieting behind me--losing, regaining, losing, regaining even more, etc. I never found calorie counting ALONE to be successful for any length of time. (Why do you think there is such a huge failure rate in keeping the body fat off?) For those like me, a multi-factorial approach is often the most successful and, with my current plan, I have avoided regain for the longest period in my adult life (four years) and my program is one that has yielded tremendous health benefits for me as well. I will be able to stay on this program for the rest of my life. I think the regain threads in the forums to be pretty sad and I just attempt to show people that there really is a different and better way FOR SOME PEOPLE who are experiencing a lot of failure. You can't count it successful, if you quickly regain what was lost as soon as you leave the low calorie plan. And the reason why many people leave the low calorie plan is because they are malnourished from only paying attention to "calories in - calories out".
First of all, IIFYM is not about eating whatever you chose. Heck, keto can even be IIFYM - its just those macros will look different than, for example, mine.
I am not disagreeing, and have never disagreed, with the premise that you should look to more than simply CICO.
0 -
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
I would disagree with the first statement and would agree with the second. I have always held that position. Some of you apparently have trouble interpreting what I have said.
I think the main issue (and this is just my opinion based on reading many of your posts) is that you tend to make what appear to be blanket statements and dismiss people who do not fit into a criteria, and in fact look to find ways that people who do not have issues do not.
While I may not agree with a lot of your more acute level advice/conclusions, your general premise is not the issue - being, you need to be in a deficit, your maintenance calories tend to be lower the older you are, tweaks to macros may help certain groups of people. I have already stated earlier, that, for example, post menopausal women may do better on higher protein and fats and lowish carbs. However, when I was brought up as an example of someone who does well and can lose weight on more 'standard', for want of a better word, macros, and based on the questions you were asking, you seemed to be doing your best to exclude me from the 'norm'. I am not a special snowflake. I am a 'normal' woman with a desk job in her late 40's whose only additional activity is lifting weights. I do not have anything special about my metabolism and I have been quite overweight at one point.
I suppose the point of this post is to point out that, if you were less prone to make what look like blanket statements and generalization, I doubt you would get as much debate.
Note: not trying to be patronizing or anything - not sure if it reads that way but it is not my intent.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.0 -
Apparently you are trying to argue with mine...or at least imply I am special. I can assure you, while I am fortunate not to have metabolic issues and to be healthy, I have not had my own fair share of set backs in my past.
But you see, I am NOT arguing with your success. To the contrary, I am happy that you are here inspiring women to be as healthy and fit as they can be. I will dig up the study on the 40% and give some more recent scientific speculations as to why (I won't have the chance this evening though--I've got to run).
0 -
Its not that some weight-lifters believe that you can - you actually can. Now, due to your arthritis, you may not be able to rely on it without additional non-resistance training and keep your calories up high enough to get better nutrition, but it certainly can be done.
Yes--I understand that, Sara. Thanks for the advice--I honestly appreciate it. Perhaps I could PM you sometime for some specific recommendations? Even though I am a "healthy" weight (for my age) right now, I would like to lose another 20-30 pounds and I'm finding that even though I am not gaining body fat (a first for me) and I believe I am improving my musculature VERY slowly, I am still not losing the last of the body fat deposits. I would really appreciate some help from an expert.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
But you see, I am NOT arguing with your success. To the contrary, I am happy that you are here inspiring women to be as healthy and fit as they can be. I will dig up the study on the 40% and give some more recent scientific speculations as to why (I won't have the chance this evening though--I've got to run).
Thank you. I was making the point (badly) that you were making out as though I was genetically lucky, or not the 'norm'. Not that you were not saying that I was successful.
I would like to see them (and not to pick holes - just to see the stats out of curiosity).0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
Yes--I understand that, Sara. Thanks for the advice--I honestly appreciate it. Perhaps I could PM you sometime for some specific recommendations? Even though I am a "healthy" weight (for my age) right now, I would like to lose another 20-30 pounds and I'm finding that even though I am not gaining body fat (a first for me) and I believe I am improving my musculature VERY slowly, I am still not losing the last of the body fat deposits. I would really appreciate some help from an expert.
Please feel free to PM me, I would be happy to help. There are ways to work around limitations that people have. I would never expect someone to be as 'into' it as I am, but resistance training has so many benefits to us. The main thing is to find something you enjoy - or at least dislike the least and can do regularly.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
0 -
I find it easier...I have more knowledge and patience and discipline now.
Agrees with it being easier now. At 45 years of age and almost 95 pounds lost in under 3 years, I have utilized the power of informed decision making as my daily tool in remaining fit and getting fitter every day.
0 -
Processed crap is the enemy. It also wastes a lot of money! Make sure you get your protein somehow though. Without that, you'll be weak and hungry.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions