carbs are my enemy
Options
Replies
-
I wasn't telling you anything. I was addressing someone else. Stop trying to pick fights.
As a unit of measure, there is no difference. A calorie is much like inch. Units of measure. An inch is an inch is an inch. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.prettykitty1515 wrote: »Just another "delusional" MD who counters the all calories are the same theory. Obviously, he must be a quack, a liar, or just trying to sell something. And he has the nerve to say that a calories from a Big Gulp and broccoli are not the same. Imagine that?
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/
However, just as some inches are much more beneficial than others, so are some calories.
The benefits derived from some inches or calories might be more desirable than others.
Is that what you're saying?
Some people believe that some calories are healthier than others, some sugars are healthier than others and some diets are healthier than others. Some don't! But some do. Is this what you're saying?
Or are you saying that calories from one thing are different units of measure than calories in another thing?
i would be curious as to how one inch is more beneficial than another…
are you telling me six inches of timber is better than six inches of concrete?????
so is that your standard response now? You spout nonsense, and anyone who questions it is "picking a fight?"-1 -
if it is a medical condition then yes, cut carbs...blktngldhrt wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »unless you have some kind of medical condition then it is not carbs that is hampering your weight loss, it is over eating.
Do you own a food scale?
do you weigh/log/measure everything?
You can eat carbs, be in a deficit, and lose weight; consequently, you can not eat carbs, eat in a surplus, and gain weight.....
She mentioned suspected insulin resistance. I don't know what suspected means, though. However..if it is insulin resistance then lowering carb intake would be a good idea.
was that confirmed by a doctor?
unless of course OP has self diagnosed herself ....
I have no idea. Just saying it was mentioned and if it is the case, carb restriction could be beneficial.
if OP has self diagnosed herself, then I would suggest seeing an actual doctor, and not playing one at home...
This is not actually great advice, since I AM a diagnosed Celiac but yet I knew MORE about my condition than the GI did!! So that does not fly in all cases
because the average person is the equivalent of an MD when it comes to medical conditions….0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
if it is a medical condition then yes, cut carbs...blktngldhrt wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »unless you have some kind of medical condition then it is not carbs that is hampering your weight loss, it is over eating.
Do you own a food scale?
do you weigh/log/measure everything?
You can eat carbs, be in a deficit, and lose weight; consequently, you can not eat carbs, eat in a surplus, and gain weight.....
She mentioned suspected insulin resistance. I don't know what suspected means, though. However..if it is insulin resistance then lowering carb intake would be a good idea.
was that confirmed by a doctor?
unless of course OP has self diagnosed herself ....
I have no idea. Just saying it was mentioned and if it is the case, carb restriction could be beneficial.
if OP has self diagnosed herself, then I would suggest seeing an actual doctor, and not playing one at home...
This is not actually great advice, since I AM a diagnosed Celiac but yet I knew MORE about my condition than the GI did!! So that does not fly in all cases
You still needed your GI to diagnose you with Celiac. Self-diagnosing is quite different than knowing more about your condition than your doctor does. Of course you do, you are the one who lives with it every day.
No, that is NOT true. My feeling better was only peripheral to my diagnosis. I actually have a great Internal Medicine doc that told me that. The GI consult was effectively useless as they told me NOTHING to help me and just Said yeah, you have this. The GI wanted me to go back on gluten For 4-8 WEEKS!!! Which means I KNOW they have no idea what I am living with!! One DAY on gluten KILLS me!! I feel it immediately, now that I know what is happening!! You CAN self-diagnose just fine with a trial of gluten free and then going back. That means you are sensitive to it if you react, BUT there is no treatment for Celiac either beside diet. The only thing done different for me was I got a DEXA scan to make sure my bones were OK after all the GI damage. They were, I went on my way...Guess what, STILL GI problems I had to figure out even though I am "fine". Doctors are NOT be all end all. They have error and they have limited education.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »Just another "delusional" MD who counters the all calories are the same theory. Obviously, he must be a quack, a liar, or just trying to sell something. And he has the nerve to say that a calories from a Big Gulp and broccoli are not the same. Imagine that?
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/
Um yes, Dr. Hyman has been a well known quack for quite sometime.
That's an unfortunate name.
I LOVE your glasses. They look great on you.
Thank you!!
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
if it is a medical condition then yes, cut carbs...blktngldhrt wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »unless you have some kind of medical condition then it is not carbs that is hampering your weight loss, it is over eating.
Do you own a food scale?
do you weigh/log/measure everything?
You can eat carbs, be in a deficit, and lose weight; consequently, you can not eat carbs, eat in a surplus, and gain weight.....
She mentioned suspected insulin resistance. I don't know what suspected means, though. However..if it is insulin resistance then lowering carb intake would be a good idea.
was that confirmed by a doctor?
unless of course OP has self diagnosed herself ....
I have no idea. Just saying it was mentioned and if it is the case, carb restriction could be beneficial.
if OP has self diagnosed herself, then I would suggest seeing an actual doctor, and not playing one at home...
This is not actually great advice, since I AM a diagnosed Celiac but yet I knew MORE about my condition than the GI did!! So that does not fly in all cases
You still needed your GI to diagnose you with Celiac. Self-diagnosing is quite different than knowing more about your condition than your doctor does. Of course you do, you are the one who lives with it every day.
No, that is NOT true. My feeling better was only peripheral to my diagnosis. I actually have a great Internal Medicine doc that told me that. The GI consult was effectively useless as they told me NOTHING to help me and just Said yeah, you have this. The GI wanted me to go back on gluten For 4-8 WEEKS!!! Which means I KNOW they have no idea what I am living with!! One DAY on gluten KILLS me!! I feel it immediately, now that I know what is happening!! You CAN self-diagnose just fine with a trial of gluten free and then going back. That means you are sensitive to it if you react, BUT there is no treatment for Celiac either beside diet. The only thing done different for me was I got a DEXA scan to make sure my bones were OK after all the GI damage. They were, I went on my way...Guess what, STILL GI problems I had to figure out even though I am "fine". Doctors are NOT be all end all. They have error and they have limited education.
And this is the perfect example of why you don't go gluten free without getting tested for Celiac first. The reason your GI told you to eat gluten for 4-8 weeks is because the test wouldn't have been accurate otherwise. And by the way, the blood test for Celiac is not accurate. It frequently gives false-negatives and false-positives. The only way to determine whether a person absolutely, positively has Celiac is through an endoscopy. One does not need to begin eating gluten again in order to have the procedure because the villi in your small intestine will still be damaged.
The comment about self-diagnosing Celiac is just absurd. You cannot self-diagnose Celiac. Period. You need an endoscopy to diagnose Celiac disease. There's a big difference between having a gluten sensitivity and having Celiac. Celiac can kill if it is left untreated.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »I have yet to personally meet a person that counts calories or counted calories. Just saying.
Just because you haven't met anyone who counts calories doesn't mean these people don't exist, or that there's anything wrong with counting calories. Most of us on MFP count calories. That is what the site is for.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »I have yet to personally meet a person that counts calories or counted calories. Just saying.
Oh, then you must expand your horizons. Believe me, there are countless people who count calories, and who have also done so in the past, and not just here on MFP.
0 -
I have yet to personally meet a person born in Australia. Just sayin.prettykitty1515 wrote: »I have yet to personally meet a person that counts calories or counted calories. Just saying.
0 -
I'm an Aussie, and I count calories. I do however draw the line at weighing food before I eat it!
I think some people may deny they calorie count, because it might come across as obsessive?? Nobody likes someone who counts every lettuce leave etc etc they eat 0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I'm an Aussie, and I count calories. I do however draw the line at weighing food before I eat it!
I think some people may deny they calorie count, because it might come across as obsessive?? Nobody likes someone who counts every lettuce leave etc etc they eat
Honestly, counting calories is pointless unless you weigh your food. You have no idea how many calories you are actually consuming unless you use a food scale. Why do you refuse to weigh your food?0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I'm an Aussie, and I count calories. I do however draw the line at weighing food before I eat it!
I think some people may deny they calorie count, because it might come across as obsessive??
I was trying to make a point. Just because I've never met someone personally who was born in Australia doesn't mean that there haven't been a lot of people born there. Just like because the person I was quoting hasn't met anyone personally who counts calories doesn't mean there aren't a lot of those who do.
Maybe. I don't think it's obsessive. Are you trying to start an obsession debate again? You know some take offense to your saying that.0 -
No no no, absolutely not wanting to start a debate. I'm just echoing what others have said about folks who calorie count.
Fatfreefrolicking I always overestimate calories to leave room for error. I'm 3kgs away from goal, so I'm doing something right.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »No no no, absolutely not wanting to start a debate. I'm just echoing what others have said about folks who calorie count.
Fatfreefrolicking I always overestimate calories to leave room for error. I'm 3kgs away from goal, so I'm doing something right.
Haha good.
I over-estimate, too, if I can't weigh.0 -
I would never ever tell my brother and sister that I count calories, coz I'd just get that stupid rolled eyes look that's specially reserved for their baby sister
0 -
If you don't weigh, you can still enter measured amounts and servings. You come up with an estimate. It won't be the best estimate, but it's a number.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I'm an Aussie, and I count calories. I do however draw the line at weighing food before I eat it!
I think some people may deny they calorie count, because it might come across as obsessive?? Nobody likes someone who counts every lettuce leave etc etc they eat
Honestly, counting calories is pointless unless you weigh your food. You have no idea how many calories you are actually consuming unless you use a food scale. Why do you refuse to weigh your food?
You find an amount of calories that allows you to lose at that number and you stick with that number. You might think you're eating 1175 when you're really eating 1503, but it doesn't matter.
You're sticking to a calorie goal and losing. You'd be eating the same amount of food as you would've if you'd set the calorie goal to 1503 and weighed every bite of food.
There are many paths to weight loss, but those two methods of using calories are very similar.0 -
Wut?You find an amount of calories that allows you to lose at that number and you stick with that number. You might think you're eating 1175 when you're really eating 1503, but it doesn't matter.
You're sticking to a calorie goal and losing. You'd be eating the same amount of food as you would've if you'd set the calorie goal to 1503 and weighed every bite of food.
There are many paths to weight loss, but those two methods of using calories are very similar.
0 -
Admittedly if I wasn't losing weight and I was at my witts end then I would probably weigh, but until that time all is good
0 -
It's the same process you use for weighing, only you don't weigh the food.
Wut?You find an amount of calories that allows you to lose at that number and you stick with that number. You might think you're eating 1175 when you're really eating 1503, but it doesn't matter.
You're sticking to a calorie goal and losing. You'd be eating the same amount of food as you would've if you'd set the calorie goal to 1503 and weighed every bite of food.
There are many paths to weight loss, but those two methods of using calories are very similar.
Diet A, Weighing:
You pick a number of calories that you think will help you lose, say 1503.
You weigh and measure every bite of food and average 1503 a day, per your estimate.
If you lose weight, that 1503 is working for you.
If you don't lose weight, you have to drop the calories down in increments until you do. Say, 1403 works.
You continue logging, weighing and measuring all your food, keeping it to 1403 and you keep losing.
Diet B, Not Weighing:
You pick a number of calories that you think will help you lose, say 1503.
You log by measuring cups and serving sizes and average 1503 a day, per your estimate.
If you lose weight, that 1503 is working for you.
If you don't lose weight, you have to drop the calories down in increments, until you do. Say, 1150 works.
You continue logging, using measurements and serving sizes, keeping it to 1150 and you keep losing.
Each of those diets contains exactly the same amount of calories. The first person thinks they are eating 1403 calories to lose weight and the second person thinks they are eating 1150 calories to lose weight.
They're eating exactly the same amount of calories and are both losing weight.
(Also, sadly, they're both wrong about how many calories they've eaten, because both methods leave room for error. They're both eating 1441 calories. But it doesn't matter that aren't aware of the precise amount of calories they've eaten, because they're both very happy about losing weight.)
0 -
It's the same process you use for weighing, only you don't weigh the food.
Wut?You find an amount of calories that allows you to lose at that number and you stick with that number. You might think you're eating 1175 when you're really eating 1503, but it doesn't matter.
You're sticking to a calorie goal and losing. You'd be eating the same amount of food as you would've if you'd set the calorie goal to 1503 and weighed every bite of food.
There are many paths to weight loss, but those two methods of using calories are very similar.
Diet A, Weighing:
You pick a number of calories that you think will help you lose, say 1503.
You weigh and measure every bite of food and average 1503 a day, per your estimate.
If you lose weight, that 1503 is working for you.
If you don't lose weight, you have to drop the calories down in increments until you do. Say, 1403 works.
You continue logging, weighing and measuring all your food, keeping it to 1403 and you keep losing.
Diet B, Not Weighing:
You pick a number of calories that you think will help you lose, say 1503.
You log by measuring cups and serving sizes and average 1503 a day, per your estimate.
If you lose weight, that 1503 is working for you.
If you don't lose weight, you have to drop the calories down in increments, until you do. Say, 1150 works.
You continue logging, using measurements and serving sizes, keeping it to 1150 and you keep losing.
Each of those diets contains exactly the same amount of calories. The first person thinks they are eating 1403 calories to lose weight and the second person thinks they are eating 1150 calories to lose weight.
They're eating exactly the same amount of calories and are both losing weight.
(Also, sadly, they're both wrong about how many calories they've eaten, because both methods leave room for error. They're both eating 1441 calories. But it doesn't matter that aren't aware of the precise amount of calories they've eaten, because they're both very happy about losing weight.)
You're still inadvertently weighing/measuring... even if using measuring cups, since there is a value associated with it (grams, ounces, ml, etc)
Option A: Far more accurate
Option B: Way less accurate0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 402 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
- 997 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions