A Question About Sugar
Options
Replies
-
More than quite a few?
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
I just tried to explain it. Obviously you are not getting the point I made, nor are actually reading my prior responses with a view to dong that. There are, as I indicated quite a few (actually, more than quite a few), but to be perfectly honest, something tells me that you are not sincere in your quest to find out.
So far we have:
1. Context
2. The things you think she was thinking.
Those are the variables you claim she's left out. I wouldn't call it "more than a few."
I'm tired of asking, though, and sorry I bothered.
I'm out.
0 -
More than quite a few?
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
I just tried to explain it. Obviously you are not getting the point I made, nor are actually reading my prior responses with a view to dong that. There are, as I indicated quite a few (actually, more than quite a few), but to be perfectly honest, something tells me that you are not sincere in your quest to find out.
So far we have:
1. Context
2. The things you think she was thinking.
Those are the variables you claim she's left out. I wouldn't call it "more than a few."
I'm tired of asking, though, and sorry I bothered.
I'm out.
That's what you have concluded out of this? Really?. Good reasoning skills! Also, still not read the thread I take it where I gave examples of some variables when asked I see.
Point 2....we covered that already...which you seem to have either forgotten, intentionally or otherwise (I know which one I am going for), did not read, or just not understood.
That's good, because I am getting tired of trying to explain something you seem to have lack of ability to comprehend.0 -
Lots of posts here0
-
I don't like cats0
-
emily_stew wrote: »
More than quite a few?
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
I just tried to explain it. Obviously you are not getting the point I made, nor are actually reading my prior responses with a view to dong that. There are, as I indicated quite a few (actually, more than quite a few), but to be perfectly honest, something tells me that you are not sincere in your quest to find out.
So far we have:
1. Context
2. The things you think she was thinking.
Those are the variables you claim she's left out. I wouldn't call it "more than a few."
I'm tired of asking, though, and sorry I bothered.
I'm out.
You know, you can't just nullify any catty statement you make by putting a smiley face at the end. Though I suppose now I'm going to have to point out, specifically and repeatedly, where the catty statements are.
Now I'm getting catty. I too am out.
You forgot BOOM! Or was it BOOMYAH!! Or was that a different thread?0 -
emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »
More than quite a few?
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
I just tried to explain it. Obviously you are not getting the point I made, nor are actually reading my prior responses with a view to dong that. There are, as I indicated quite a few (actually, more than quite a few), but to be perfectly honest, something tells me that you are not sincere in your quest to find out.
So far we have:
1. Context
2. The things you think she was thinking.
Those are the variables you claim she's left out. I wouldn't call it "more than a few."
I'm tired of asking, though, and sorry I bothered.
I'm out.
You know, you can't just nullify any catty statement you make by putting a smiley face at the end. Though I suppose now I'm going to have to point out, specifically and repeatedly, where the catty statements are.
Now I'm getting catty. I too am out.
You forgot BOOM! Or was it BOOMYAH!! Or was that a different thread?
I think it's the same thread. But at 25 pages, who knows? I am not going back down the rabbit hole to find out.
BOOYAH?
I can't blame you.
BOOYAH works!0 -
You said she was missing "quite a few variables," so I thought there might be more than one.
You said she missed quite a few. "Context" is debatable as a variabe, but I'll leave that be.
You say she's missing variables. She asks which ones. You tell her what you assume her assumptions are.
You didn't answer. What variables was she missing?
How do you know what she assumes? If she didn't say it, you cannot make up what she's thinking and then attack her for it. Well, you can, but it's ridiculous.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Such as context.
You are assuming that saturated fats are bad, that high fiber is always good, that more is better and completely ignoring personal circumstances such as activity levels, preference and adherence.
Also, she was asking you what you meant about "missing variables." You didn't answer that.
I did answer, and yes I can based on her actual post.
If she did not, then she can tell me.
Also lol at that being attacking.
Why don't you read the thread more carefully.
Putting aside the fact that those assumptions were made up by you, is that your answer? Her assumptions were the key variables she was missing?
Good lawd.
First of all - she actually said what she thought was important in her actual post.
Secondly, and again...read the thread more carefully. I gave an example of the big variable she was missing - context.
She has already responded - if my assumptions were wrong - you think she may have said so.
What were the rest of the "quite a few variables"?
Context is actually the over-riding element for most variables. But, if you want to play semantics, then fine.
You're amazing. Is this a well crafted act, or earnest questions?0 -
I had a chocolate truffle today0
-
0
-
fearlessleader104 wrote: »I had a chocolate truffle today
I had 3 jaffa cakes.0 -
What happens to this thread if we stop posting0
-
fearlessleader104 wrote: »What happens to this thread if we stop posting
A bear defecates in the woods on a fallen tree.0 -
fearlessleader104 wrote: »What happens to this thread if we stop posting
Well, assuming no-one else posts for a while, it will go to the bowels of MFP where dead posts go, only to be resurrected in a year's time with either a spam post or a post from someone with single digit post count, if precedent is anything to go by.
However, the likelihood of none of the other prior posters not posting here later today/tomorrow is slim to none.0 -
I would personally try to cut out both sugar AND carbs as much as possible. I have found that for me the only thing that has worked is the Low carb, High fat diet. Carbs and sugar are essentially the same, and scientific research that I have read, suggests humans dont need carbohydrates at all, but rather by using energy dense fats you will not only feel fuller for longer, but this will cause you to eat less. I personally think you can't cut one without the other and expect a result.
Ps: sorry I didnt read all the boring Troll *kitten* first tho and kept the thread alive.0 -
I like science0
-
I'd like to speak to you all about the cult of peanut butter oreos. It's quite delicious.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions