carbs are my enemy

Options
1222325272838

Replies

  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »

    Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.

    Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”

    While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.

    The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.

    The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.

    Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.

    In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.

    Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.


    Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.

    Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.

    junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html

    Best troll ever

    I second that. I'd love to know who the person is sitting behind GaleHawkins computer screen.
  • blktngldhrt
    blktngldhrt Posts: 1,053 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »

    Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.

    Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”

    While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.

    The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.

    The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.

    Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.

    In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.

    Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.


    Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.

    Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.

    junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html

    Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.

    That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »

    Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.

    Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”

    While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.

    The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.

    The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.

    Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.

    In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.

    Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.


    Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.

    Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.

    junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html

    Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.

    That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from

    Oh I know! Just telling him that that is not a peer-reviewed site :) However, dozens of people have told him that since he started appearing in the forums and he still hasn't grasped the concept of what 'peer-reviewed' means!

    Gale, the following are acceptable sources of information:
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
    3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/
    4. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/
    5. http://www.cdc.gov
    6. http://www.who.int/en/
    7. https://clinicaltrials.gov
    8. http://www.nih.gov
    9. http://www.apa.org/index.aspx
    10. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.

    Trust me to join the conversation at this point. :p But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol

    I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."

    What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.

    My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.

    Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?

    Because you don't.

    There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.

    Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
    I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.

    No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is

    Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
    Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.

    Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »

    Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.

    Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”

    While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.

    The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.

    The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.

    Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.

    In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.

    Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.


    Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.

    Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.

    junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html

    Blogger science. Sounds legit.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.

    Trust me to join the conversation at this point. :p But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol

    I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."

    What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.

    My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.

    Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?

    Because you don't.

    There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.

    Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
    I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.

    No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is

    Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
    Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.

    Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.

    You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.

    Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.

    You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    down 1.4lbs this week by cutting carbs in half... it had stalled for 4 weeks .... i think i will keep going

    You know that's water weight, right? Keep counting calories.

    of course its water weight but it will only continue to drop from here. i no longer feel bloated sick or tired and it will only get better. by eating 180g of carbs per day i could not shift any more weight and i was keeping within 1200 calories per day and doing 50 minutes of cardio per day.

    how do you shift weight???

    Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.

    not a brit so I don't know the "lingo"…

    why would you assume an american would know british slang? That is like assuming an Italian would know american slang...

    Because it is so common that the vast majority of people would know it, assuming they have ever watched television or movies with British characters or interviews with live British people. (Not to mention that you have a reputation around MFP for playing dumb just so you can mock people.)

    hmmm well according to others in this thread they have never heard of it as well. So I guess it is not as common as you state.

    So asking how you shift weight is mocking? Ok…if you say so ..

    I see another white knight as entered the fray …

    I am off to watch football…just in case you are wondering that is the one where the guys throw the football around, not soccer ….
    I think she was referring to your habit of asking innocent-sounding questions in order to bait people into fights or ambush them with nastiness.

    its not baiting..its called the socratic method look it up …

    am I getting under your amphibious skin?
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.

    Trust me to join the conversation at this point. :p But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol

    I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."

    What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.

    My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.

    Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?

    Because you don't.

    There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.

    Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
    I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.

    No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is

    Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
    Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.

    Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.

    You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.

    Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.

    You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
    In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited December 2014
    Options
    How old are you, how much do you weigh, and how tall are you?

    (And I ask these questions fully aware that you probably had no real idea of how many calories you were consuming.)
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    I'm 20, nearly 5'8", 120 pounds.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    Medically underweight. Have you been to a doctor?
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    I'm 20, nearly 5'8", 120 pounds.

    You're quite underweight. You're also not completely sedentary, and when I plugged your stats into a TDEE calculator guess what I got? The same rate you said you were eating. It's not extraordinary for your age. You eat around 2000 calories, your TDEE is around 2000 calories(ish).

  • Excepticon
    Excepticon Posts: 83 Member
    Options
    I've been off MFP for a couple of months now and fully expected that when I logged back on I would be at the same weight (or higher) than I was when I left. Apparently I've lost 20lbs since then and didn't realize it because I haven't really been trying to lose.

    I am *SO* not bragging, but I'm saying this because the only drastic change I've made since... IDK, August... has been to cut way back on my carb intake. WAY back. My daily goal is <20, but a kick-*kitten* day is about 10.

    I've always known I've been carb-sensitive but it's always been minimal. Like, I couldn't eat a doughnut first thing in the morning or I would have a migraine. Then, earlier this year, the migraines would get triggered more easily, more frequently, with less carbs.

    Since I've gone low-carb, I feel amazing. I hardly ever get headaches. (Or at least I know what foods to avoid so that I don't get a headache, and even if it's the most delicious fudge in the world specifically made for me by a family member... I'll avoid it like the plague because of how bad I feel after.) I knew I had been losing weight just because of the way clothes fit on me, but I had no idea how much I had lost.

    So, yeah, I guess I subscribe to the low-carb theory now.
  • LeenaGee
    LeenaGee Posts: 749 Member
    edited December 2014
    Options
    Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.

    lol Most of what is written on MFP holds no value or accuracy and that is one of the reasons I did not provide the link in the first place as I knew it was not from "a peer-reviewed scienticic database." To me it was just an interesting article presenting another side to a discussion. Nothing more, nothing less.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.

    lol Most of what is written on MFP holds no value or accuracy and that is one of the reasons I did not provide the link in the first place as I knew it was not from "a peer-reviewed scienticic database." To me it was just an interesting article presenting another side to a discussion. Nothing more, nothing less.

    It didn't present a different side though. The author was actually agreeing with calories in calories out, just had no idea what the term actually means, so they thought they were disagreeing.

    Calories out = BMR+NEAT+TEF+Exercise. The author thought that calories out = Exercise, and attempted to explain that there's more to it.

    Sorry, but ignorance isn't "a different side." It's just ignorance.
  • LeenaGee
    LeenaGee Posts: 749 Member
    Options
    Exception, the difference when you cut out carbs is amazing and your body thanks you for it and punishes you for lapsing. I have had a social weekend eating at Chinese restaurants and at a friend's home and I have had the worst time trying to sleep. My head hurts, I feel foggy and I can't wait to return to normal eating. I am actually craving healthy food. Now please people, don't tell me there is no such thing as good or bad food because I will give you the address of this restaurant and you can check it out for yourselves. :p

    Rachylouise, I hope you are still hanging in there in amongst all the "interesting discussions" about shifting weight and goodness know what. For the record, in Australia we use the term "shift" in relation to weight as well.
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.

    lol Most of what is written on MFP holds no value or accuracy and that is one of the reasons I did not provide the link in the first place as I knew it was not from "a peer-reviewed scienticic database." To me it was just an interesting article presenting another side to a discussion. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Actually, many users on MFP have degrees and careers in the medical field. I've come in contact with many researchers, scientists, etc. As difficult as it may be to believe, not everyone who posts here pulls things out of their @rse.
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    Options
    LeenaGee wrote: »
    Exception, the difference when you cut out carbs is amazing and your body thanks you for it and punishes you for lapsing. I have had a social weekend eating at Chinese restaurants and at a friend's home and I have had the worst time trying to sleep. My head hurts, I feel foggy and I can't wait to return to normal eating. I am actually craving healthy food. Now please people, don't tell me there is no such thing as good or bad food because I will give you the address of this restaurant and you can check it out for yourselves. :p

    Rachylouise, I hope you are still hanging in there in amongst all the "interesting discussions" about shifting weight and goodness know what. For the record, in Australia we use the term "shift" in relation to weight as well.

    There are healthier choices at Chinese restaurants. Steamed chicken and veggies is delicious AND low carb. You could've opted for that.

    Your body simply isn't used to eating at restaurants or eating highly processed foods so a headache, brain fog, and difficulty sleeping are all normal side effects.
  • LeenaGee
    LeenaGee Posts: 749 Member
    edited December 2014
    Options
This discussion has been closed.