Fed Up Documentary
Options
Replies
-
I just spent about half an hour catching up from page 14 where I left off. Good work people, tons of good information in this thread.
0 -
annehutson2 wrote: »I have been eating whole foods and cutting down my processed foods...I don't need the sugar and a lot of what is processed is high in calories but lacks nutrients...I want to be healthy not just skinny. You can be skinny and still lack the basic ingredients of health...Our tax dollars in the USA would be better spent subsidizing healthier options instead of crops like GMO Corn...
First, I agree that we should get rid of corn subsidies, but I think we should get rid of agricultural subsidies in general.
Second, most corn subsidies have not, in fact, gone to "processed foods." A plurality have gone to benefit meat producers (feed) and people who buy meat (since even though of us who seek out alternative sources for our meat--which I do for ethical reasons--would probably pay more if not for all of that), and this includes even fish (farmed fish are fed corn). The next highest has gone to ethanol. Then exports. The percentage for the food industry is relatively small--even including exports only 15% of the US corn crop is used for food and beverage at all (excluding feed for animals, again). Some portion of this 15% is probably pet food, though.
And of course around here some people actually just eat corn. Corn season is one of my favorite times of year.
But I think it's wise to cut down on low-nutrient, high calorie foods, and if a lot of what you eat that falls into that category is processed, it's probably a good thing to cut down on. You don't need conspiracy theories or scare tactics re sugar (i.e., Fed Up) to make that point, though.
0 -
YOU got it! show (Katie Couric) the money, and yes I bought into it, and yes my name is loops and I am addicted to sugar... that's why I am limiting it in my diet but you noticed I haven't kicked it all the way to the curb.
I am trying to limit my sugar, and no I don't recommend this book I pretty much made a donation to the author, she has some points I can agree with... but I have not found the book helpful or the recipes that exciting. I think there are better recipes here.
can't be serious….0 -
YOU got it! show (Katie Couric) the money, and yes I bought into it, and yes my name is loops and I am addicted to sugar... that's why I am limiting it in my diet but you noticed I haven't kicked it all the way to the curb.
I am trying to limit my sugar, and no I don't recommend this book I pretty much made a donation to the author, she has some points I can agree with... but I have not found the book helpful or the recipes that exciting. I think there are better recipes here.
I think someone put a little something extra in your loops, Loops.0 -
NikiChicken wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
A lot of cardio can actually be counter-productive to the aging female body. Cardio is "catabolic"--that is, it tends to be decrease lean body mass. Weight-lifting, on the other hand is "anabolic"--that is, it tends to increase lean body mass. Which one do you think is better for increasing the flagging metabolism of the aging woman? I actually don't do a lot of cardio--just enough to keep my cardiovascular system healthy. She may have a better metabolism than I have to start with--many, many women are not so fortunate. It is estimated that about 40% of post-menopausal women have thyroid problems (as do I).
So first you infer that she has a rigorous training schedule most can or won't do as a reason she's able to be as she is. But now that it is "revealed" she does something that is actually average and doable, it's got to be her "better" metabolism (insinuating that it's something she's always had)???
:laugh:
Okay then.
Was she ever more than 20-30 pounds overweight?
I believe she lost about 40-45 lbs.
I think that some weight-lifters believe that you can lose all the body fat you want to with just weight-lifting alone. I have yet to see that happen with me but I certainly have improved A LOT.
I feel like the two of us are having two different conversations. I definitely was not (in this or any thread) arguing that all you need to lose any amount of body fat is lifting.
I think all that's being pointed out here is that there are certainly women on this site who are in their 40s, were once overweight/obese, exercise moderately, and haven't had the need to cut out food groups in order to lose fat.
My understanding is that certain types of diet are better for people with thyroid issues, but I don't think that necessarily carries over to the rest of the population.
Let's see, I'm in my 40's, have thyroid issues and am diabetic. However, I've lost over 85 pounds, lowered my A1C into the "normal" range and am in the best shape of my life. I still eat everything (in moderation), including ice cream, chocolate and full-fat cheese. Because of the diabetes, I have to limit how many carbs I eat in order to keep my A1C in the normal range, but I still eat them, just in moderation. It would be a sad, sad world if I couldn't have ice cream and pizza once in a while...
:drinker:
That's awesome.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »Quite stunned still to have read this comment and not seeing others respond to the fallacies it presents to the readers:
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".
It is so annoying to see people spout opinions based on their own misinformed collection of thoughts and try to present themselves as informed.
Firstly, CICO does not equal low calorie. Secondly, people do not quickly regain because they were malnourished from only paying attention to CICO. One can be entirely well-nourished, following a moderate deficit, CICO and IIFYM and still regain once they hit their magical goal because they are not eating at maintenance - they are eating in surplus. What causes them to eat at a suprlus? A whole list of things that are entirely individual and one could spend days discussing them.
You want to eat a certain way because it works for you? Great. You want to share what works for you? Awesome. But please - stop demonizing and misinforming others with your incorrect conclusions and opinions and trying to present them as factual. The use of words like 'generally' and 'often' does not actually make your statements any less wrong.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
The recommendation sounds very similar to IIFYM!
No. She has so completely messed up her health and metabolism from eating (and drinking) whatever--"as long as it fits in her macros" that she now gains weight on eating practically nothing (when she is laid up because of an injury). She just recently had to have achilles tendon surgery. She is very flabby and sickly looking and thinks that all she has to do is run more and that will fix everything. It's NOT working.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
Since you want to be so critical of everyone else and have excuses for everything, why don't you opt your page and diary so that we can see how it's done. Every time someone comes along being all high and mighty about what they eat and trashing their own friends, their diaries are closed.
Also, you are doing a pretty pathetic job of backing up all your claims. It's apparent the are just opinions not facts. And you've back peddled pretty well I must say.
Open your diary if you feel it's necessary to trash others. Don't be a hypocrite.
I make no excuses--I have taken my health in my hands and it's all good. I have much personal information on my page that I do not open to everyone on the internet--sorry. I have posted pages of my food diaries before. If I feel like it, I will but I only give access to those I choose. I have NEVER "back-pedalled" by the way. I remain of the same opinions as those I had when I began this "discussion". You reveal your mindset when you speak of others "...being all high and mighty...". My diary is open to my friends and I cannot imagine any scenario in which I would select you for a friend. Sit on it.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Probably because the general and special theories are testable, and provide consistent results on repetition of those tests.
Metabolic syndrome is just a load of bollocks with no evidence to support it, and a vehicle to sell books to dimwits who prefer complicated lies to simple truths.
Troll on, luv.
I believe that the definition of an internet troll is someone who goes on internet forums and insults and antagonizes other posters. It is not my thing but apparently it is yours.
no, it is someone that posts a bunch of malarky to get replies...
That is your definition--I'll stick with mine. How quaint of you to use a word like "malarky".
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »tigersword wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
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".
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.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
You must have gotten your information from this nonsense link over at Mercola. No surprise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/fructose-and-the-fat-switch.aspx
I mean the level of fear mongering is insane.
No--I got it directly from a website of a symposium of obesity experts. This is really getting tiresome. Dr. Johnson does leading edge research. Just because Mercola chooses to report on it does nothing to discredit the research of Dr. Johnson and his team.
Would you mind linking it (apologies is you have and I missed it)
Here you go: http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/presenters-johnson.htm
I just skimmed the review article that he did (the only link that mentioned obesity or metabolic syndrome) - he does not conclude anything re obesity. He has an hypotheses.
I am going to read the article in more detail when I have a bit more time, but in the mean time, do you have the link to the study you mentioned?
I'm pretty sure it is on the website that I linked. It's been a while--I'll see if I can find it if it is not on the website. I'll link it when I find it.
0 -
YOU got it! show (Katie Couric) the money, and yes I bought into it, and yes my name is loops and I am addicted to sugar... that's why I am limiting it in my diet but you noticed I haven't kicked it all the way to the curb.
I am trying to limit my sugar, and no I don't recommend this book I pretty much made a donation to the author, she has some points I can agree with... but I have not found the book helpful or the recipes that exciting. I think there are better recipes here.
I think someone put a little something extra in your loops, Loops.
Thanks... now you know why I need to reduce my sugar.
0 -
I blame the filthy rich corporations that manufacture forks. Have you noticed that everyone in America who is overweight eat with forks? Meanwhile, the CEOs of those corporations are making BILLIONS! But you don't hear about that in the media....why? Because the fork manufacturers have paid them hush money. Stop using forks and you will lose the weight!
Sorry. I felt like blaming someone other than myself too.
Seriously… LOL!
OP: If you want to… you can blame anything and everything on somebody else. But until you start taking responsibility for yourself and what you put in your mouth and how much exercise you get… You're always going to struggle with your weight. CICO is not just a song people sing because we think it sounds pretty. It's science. Age, metabolism, heredity, medications and certain medical conditions can all affect the "calories out" portion of the equation… but the equation still works. If you want to take the Fed Up challenge… go for it. I hope you get what you are looking for out of it. But my first point stands. The first step towards success is rejecting all excuses for failure.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You know what else gets tiresome? You trying to make every thread about smallish aging post-menopausal women, as if you are 90% of the population.SanteMulberry wrote: »After all the time Sara dedicated to responding I was hoping for more from SanteMulberry. I'm disappointed. But not really surprised.
I do have other things to do you know--besides participating in the forums. I don't often participate here because it is very time consuming. Why add the "not really surprised"--what is that supposed to mean? I have likely had many more posts than Sara in this thread. What ARE you talking about? Really--many of you here need to learn how to respond to the points that people make without resorting to attacks on the character of the one with whom you disagree. It really gets very tiresome.
I speak to those who are in that category--I am trying to potentially help them with what has helped me. If you are not in that category, then my remarks are not addressed to you and I would appreciate you butting out.
-4 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You admitted to trolling earlier in this thread when you said how much you enjoy the reaction you get. So, yes, it is your thing.SanteMulberry wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Probably because the general and special theories are testable, and provide consistent results on repetition of those tests.
Metabolic syndrome is just a load of bollocks with no evidence to support it, and a vehicle to sell books to dimwits who prefer complicated lies to simple truths.
Troll on, luv.
I believe that the definition of an internet troll is someone who goes on internet forums and insults and antagonizes other posters. It is not my thing but apparently it is yours.
No, that is not what I said. I said that I generally don't visit the forums anymore but occasionally, I find them amusing. That is not the same as what you have accused. I really don't "enjoy the reaction I get"--those are your words. I find the snarky reactions often annoying and sometimes interesting in a clinical kind of way (I have a degree in counseling psychology) but the part that amuses me is the way that some people in the forums apparently think that insults of random individuals on the internet is something that is very important to do.
-1 -
feralkitten1010 wrote: »I'm not trying to be snarky, but how can you make a judgment about a program you haven't even started yet? Best of luck to you, but I think I'll stick to what I've been doing: calorie counting.
I noticed the same thing on another thread; some new person decided they were going to try such and such (I think it was IF) and I mentioned that it would be nice to see a post after the person with the brilliant idea had tried out their "plan". Someone on that thread pointed out that others had chimed in on the thread to say it had worked for them. Same thing happened here, although I don't think anyone has claimed to actually have done the Fed Up 10 day Challenge. Have you read what that entails? It sounds miserable to me. No salad dressings, no pasta sauce, no ketchup, no sweets (my generic term for all goodies that contain sugar), no white carbs like rice, potatoes, bread (I don't know why those are included) -- basically no fun although apparently you can consume booze, moderately.
I found a blog from someone who had done a sugar free January. She said it was really, really hard and mostly she did it just to prove she could. On the 28th day she was out to eat with some friends and ate dessert. There were some comments about her efforts, some of which she responded to, but the last comment which asked if she had lost weight that month, she did not answer. Here's her blog. Its from 2011 I think
http://www.52kitchenadventures.com/2011/02/11/surviving-a-month-without-refined-sugar/
I noticed that most of her recipes are baked and contain sugar, so apparently she decided it was not a long term plan, for her.
0 -
Then if you're not going to open yourself to be criticized by others on your eating habits then you have no right to criticize others' eating habits here in the discussion.SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »Quite stunned still to have read this comment and not seeing others respond to the fallacies it presents to the readers:
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".
It is so annoying to see people spout opinions based on their own misinformed collection of thoughts and try to present themselves as informed.
Firstly, CICO does not equal low calorie. Secondly, people do not quickly regain because they were malnourished from only paying attention to CICO. One can be entirely well-nourished, following a moderate deficit, CICO and IIFYM and still regain once they hit their magical goal because they are not eating at maintenance - they are eating in surplus. What causes them to eat at a suprlus? A whole list of things that are entirely individual and one could spend days discussing them.
You want to eat a certain way because it works for you? Great. You want to share what works for you? Awesome. But please - stop demonizing and misinforming others with your incorrect conclusions and opinions and trying to present them as factual. The use of words like 'generally' and 'often' does not actually make your statements any less wrong.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
The recommendation sounds very similar to IIFYM!
No. She has so completely messed up her health and metabolism from eating (and drinking) whatever--"as long as it fits in her macros" that she now gains weight on eating practically nothing (when she is laid up because of an injury). She just recently had to have achilles tendon surgery. She is very flabby and sickly looking and thinks that all she has to do is run more and that will fix everything. It's NOT working.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
Since you want to be so critical of everyone else and have excuses for everything, why don't you opt your page and diary so that we can see how it's done. Every time someone comes along being all high and mighty about what they eat and trashing their own friends, their diaries are closed.
Also, you are doing a pretty pathetic job of backing up all your claims. It's apparent the are just opinions not facts. And you've back peddled pretty well I must say.
Open your diary if you feel it's necessary to trash others. Don't be a hypocrite.
I make no excuses--I have taken my health in my hands and it's all good. I have much personal information on my page that I do not open to everyone on the internet--sorry. I have posted pages of my food diaries before. If I feel like it, I will but I only give access to those I choose. I have NEVER "back-pedalled" by the way. I remain of the same opinions as those I had when I began this "discussion". You reveal your mindset when you speak of others "...being all high and mighty...". My diary is open to my friends and I cannot imagine any scenario in which I would select you for a friend. Sit on it.
Me want to be friends with you? Yea, never has or will ever cross my mind.. I like strong friends that don't post nonsense using age, hormones, gender etc as a crutch.
Me thinking I'm high and mighty? Maybe, maybe not. I'm no where near the best on this site but I think I'm pretty f'ing awesome for sure. I love me some me!!!!
LOL--now that is amusing!
I can't believe that you actually posted this:
"...Then if you're not going to open yourself to be criticized by others on your eating habits then you have no right to criticize others' eating habits here in the discussion..."
Since when do you get to set the rules for what anyone comments about the eating habits of others? LOL!
-3 -
YOU got it! show (Katie Couric) the money, and yes I bought into it, and yes my name is loops and I am addicted to sugar... that's why I am limiting it in my diet but you noticed I haven't kicked it all the way to the curb.
I am trying to limit my sugar, and no I don't recommend this book I pretty much made a donation to the author, she has some points I can agree with... but I have not found the book helpful or the recipes that exciting. I think there are better recipes here.
I think someone put a little something extra in your loops, Loops.
Thanks... now you know why I need to reduce my sugar.
Lol, reduction in sugar is fine if yo need to lose weight, cutting it out completely is unnecessary in weight loss, unless you have a medical issue. It doesn't matter what a bunch of old, post-menopausal women who have made up diseases like metabolic syndrome tells you. -3 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
Then if you're not going to open yourself to be criticized by others on your eating habits then you have no right to criticize others' eating habits here in the discussion.SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »Quite stunned still to have read this comment and not seeing others respond to the fallacies it presents to the readers:
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".
It is so annoying to see people spout opinions based on their own misinformed collection of thoughts and try to present themselves as informed.
Firstly, CICO does not equal low calorie. Secondly, people do not quickly regain because they were malnourished from only paying attention to CICO. One can be entirely well-nourished, following a moderate deficit, CICO and IIFYM and still regain once they hit their magical goal because they are not eating at maintenance - they are eating in surplus. What causes them to eat at a suprlus? A whole list of things that are entirely individual and one could spend days discussing them.
You want to eat a certain way because it works for you? Great. You want to share what works for you? Awesome. But please - stop demonizing and misinforming others with your incorrect conclusions and opinions and trying to present them as factual. The use of words like 'generally' and 'often' does not actually make your statements any less wrong.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
The recommendation sounds very similar to IIFYM!
No. She has so completely messed up her health and metabolism from eating (and drinking) whatever--"as long as it fits in her macros" that she now gains weight on eating practically nothing (when she is laid up because of an injury). She just recently had to have achilles tendon surgery. She is very flabby and sickly looking and thinks that all she has to do is run more and that will fix everything. It's NOT working.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
Since you want to be so critical of everyone else and have excuses for everything, why don't you opt your page and diary so that we can see how it's done. Every time someone comes along being all high and mighty about what they eat and trashing their own friends, their diaries are closed.
Also, you are doing a pretty pathetic job of backing up all your claims. It's apparent the are just opinions not facts. And you've back peddled pretty well I must say.
Open your diary if you feel it's necessary to trash others. Don't be a hypocrite.
I make no excuses--I have taken my health in my hands and it's all good. I have much personal information on my page that I do not open to everyone on the internet--sorry. I have posted pages of my food diaries before. If I feel like it, I will but I only give access to those I choose. I have NEVER "back-pedalled" by the way. I remain of the same opinions as those I had when I began this "discussion". You reveal your mindset when you speak of others "...being all high and mighty...". My diary is open to my friends and I cannot imagine any scenario in which I would select you for a friend. Sit on it.
Me want to be friends with you? Yea, never has or will ever cross my mind.. I like strong friends that don't post nonsense using age, hormones, gender etc as a crutch.
Me thinking I'm high and mighty? Maybe, maybe not. I'm no where near the best on this site but I think I'm pretty f'ing awesome for sure. I love me some me!!!!
LOL--now that is amusing!
I can't believe that you actually posted this:
"...Then if you're not going to open yourself to be criticized by others on your eating habits then you have no right to criticize others' eating habits here in the discussion..."
Since when do you get to set the rules for what anyone comments about the eating habits of others? LOL!
Then we reserve the right to call you a hypocrite on top of being someone full of excuses.
Carry on.
BOOM..
*shots fired* someone call 911….0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Probably because the general and special theories are testable, and provide consistent results on repetition of those tests.
Metabolic syndrome is just a load of bollocks with no evidence to support it, and a vehicle to sell books to dimwits who prefer complicated lies to simple truths.
Troll on, luv.
I believe that the definition of an internet troll is someone who goes on internet forums and insults and antagonizes other posters. It is not my thing but apparently it is yours.
no, it is someone that posts a bunch of malarky to get replies...
That is your definition--I'll stick with mine. How quaint of you to use a word like "malarky".
so by that definition you were definitely trolling….but have a nice night...
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions