Doesn't Counting Calories Count?
Replies
-
Since there's a literal mountain of scientific evidence supporting CICO, I was curious if you've seen anything in the scientific literature supporting this. I'm doing a search (as I'm lucky enough to have access to a bunch of journals) but not finding much research out there. Not being confrontational, just curious.0
-
I did find one article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that was published in 1973 (the study was done in West Germany) that 100% supports this. Fascinating.0
-
Hey camtosh, not everyone can be a cool geek!
I have decided to try this to negotiate the panic I feel when the number of calories heads for the stratosphere
:
Plan is starting today I will log everything to be aware of what I am actually eating. Get the big picture of a day of eating.
Then, it's history. Before I save the log for the day I will delete everything that doesn't have carbs. Then I will save what is left, to have a record of my carb counts only and focus on that only over a period of time. Of course if my weight balloons up over the next few weeks I will be a fat lab rat
0 -
jmarton1977 wrote: »Since there's a literal mountain of scientific evidence supporting CICO, I was curious if you've seen anything in the scientific literature supporting this. I'm doing a search (as I'm lucky enough to have access to a bunch of journals) but not finding much research out there. Not being confrontational, just curious.
I'd recommend you watch this as a starting point https://youtube.com/watch?v=fL5-9ZxamXc The Professor mentions plenty of studies.
0 -
jmarton1977 wrote: »Since there's a literal mountain of scientific evidence supporting CICO, I was curious if you've seen anything in the scientific literature supporting this.
There are studies where an ad lib restricted carb diet does better than calorie restriction in an RCT.
Bill at caloriesproper.com has graphed the lack of correlation between weight loss and calorie intake across multiple studies. Volk's recent paper on saturated fat showed a correlation between weight loss and carb intake at constant calorie intake.0 -
The best losses I have had have been by NOT counting calories but keeping my carbs low so I know this to be truth BUT I find it hard to disassociate myself from the calories so although I do track them, they are as part of a larger group of macros & not the number I am interested in.
I will & sometimes do, go over calories but as long as I am getting enough fibre, protein & keep my carbs low, I will & do lose.
0 -
IamUndrCnstruction wrote: »I can't say that I won't continue to count...at least for awhile, but this thread has made me think. Today, I weighed myself. The scale had not budged from last week. Now, in the past I wouldhave freaked out. I would have immediately dropped my calorie intake. Today, I just stepped off, thought about the fact that I am eating good food, I feel good, I have energy to work out....and the pants I put on are too big. So, to borrow a phrase I have heard here, keep calm and keto on.
Wow, @IamUndrCnstruction That is a HUGE NSV right there!!! I hope you celebrate the crap out of that...
I'm loving all the information I'm taking in from all the different sources here. It makes so much more sense than the bull we've always been fed that never made sense! Some of the advice doesn't fit specifically to me, but it will fit for others. I firmly believe that by watching my carbs and filling in with fats, my body will level out on the calories! I'm so happy to hear my body's internal voice again. It's been too long.1 -
Great information.... I do count - but it is more to track and learn. I hope to get to a place where I don't need to. I am still learning what to eat - so tracking allows me to see what the macros of different foods are.
I back and forth on dairy and nuts. This is where I need to continue to read as well as listen to my body figure out where they belong.1 -
I've seen the other side of this. I've been back and forth LC/keto for over a decade, and I have gained on it. I don't mean 5 lbs of water or 10 lbs along the way. It's somewhere in the range of 60-100. Unfortunately, I really don't know how much of it is fat and how much is water, but I only have lymphedema in my legs, and my arms are definitely fat. You can still overeat while limiting carbs. In some ways it's easier, because overeating fatty foods will get you there twice as fast unless you eat them slowly. The only reason I gained is because I had other stuff going on, did not make my weight a priority, and quit paying attention to how much I ate, only kept within my low carb guidelines because I don't have a choice there. Doing otherwise makes me sick.
I think there is a trend, especially lately, for people to expect far too much out of LC. It's a WOE that helps control your hunger and improves a lot of varied health problems. It's not a diet or a magic fat killing fairy dust. Some people will have luck that staying under X number of carbs will translate to also eating fewer calories than they need during that day, but that's hardly a guarantee. It's certainly not a universal truth. The all-butter diet idea is similar to that twinkie strawman the IIFYM people throw around the main forums, but reality is, if you limit your carbs, but have an extra cup of coffee with cream/oil/butter/etc each day, or make yourself dessert with berries and whipped cream every night, that alone is easily enough to push you over into gaining. Or if you do both. Or if some days you decide to have a drink after dinner. Essentially, eating like a "normal" person, only restricting carbs in the process. The lower your TDEE, the easier it is to add an extra thing or two that seems like nothing, especially if it's carb free, that will instead have you gain instead.
It's bad at one extreme there are people who misguidedly think they have to eat all of their fat grams every day to stay on track, but it's just as bad for people to think that as long as they don't exceed their carbs, some process in their body will suddenly regulate their intake forever.1 -
JPW, we'll have to agree that not counting calories doesn't work for you. There are many possible underlying issues that can work to prevent a natural weight maintenance even with low-carb. You may have some of them.
I would disagree that anyone is claiming that low-carb is 'magic' or something. Even the experiment where the man intentionally over-ate a significant amount to prove that CICO doesn't work, showed he gained weight. He gained significantly less than expected on low carb (and almost exactly as expected on high-carb), but he did gain. You can gain weight eating any diet. But, I still disagree that you (or at least most people) need to count calories to lose or maintain weight. Watch the video, if you need to see why from someone smarter than I am.0 -
JPW, we'll have to agree that not counting calories doesn't work for you. There are many possible underlying issues that can work to prevent a natural weight maintenance even with low-carb. You may have some of them.
I would disagree that anyone is claiming that low-carb is 'magic' or something. Even the experiment where the man intentionally over-ate a significant amount to prove that CICO doesn't work, showed he gained weight. He gained significantly less than expected on low carb (and almost exactly as expected on high-carb), but he did gain. You can gain weight eating any diet. But, I still disagree that you (or at least most people) need to count calories to lose or maintain weight. Watch the video, if you need to see why from someone smarter than I am.
I'm not arguing with the fact that it can work, I'm arguing with the "will work for most" part. There are simply too many factors to make a declarative statement like that. That's not based on my own personal experience, but on what you'll see on every message board dedicated to diabetes, heart disease, PCOS, arthritis, lymphedema, TTC, and every other place where people discuss how lc has worked for them. At best, you could state that for a perfectly healthy, young, and most likely male individual, there's a good chance it will work. It just happens that a perfectly healthy, young, and most likely male individual also has the easiest time losing weight using any weight loss method.0 -
Let's take a look at low-carb plans/gurus and see how they align with calorie counting:
- William Banting: No counting calories {often considered the original low-carb diet, before calories were understood or known for most foods}
- Robert Atkins: No counting calories {1. Don’t count calories}
- Gary Taubes: No counting calories {see any of his books}
- Jeff Volek: No counting calories {"I’ve effortlessly maintained my weight over 20 years without counting, I never count calories."}
- Peter Attia: No counting calories {“Should I be counting calories?” In a word, no.}
- Jonathan Bailor: No counting calories {see video in original post or his book}
- Typical ketogenic diet: No counting calories {Most people do not need to count calories on that diet, because they naturally start consuming a healthy amount of calories.}
I could probably go on, but what's the point. The basic fact is that traditionally, low carb diets do not require counting calories. Many of them advise against it. While you can certainly count calories (if that's your thing), it is not part of most traditional low carb diets.
While, I accept that many people will have to count (due to whatever behavioral or biological conditions which low-carb doesn't correct), that doesn't mean counting calories should be the default condition or advice around here.1 -
I do not count my calories much. I note them because it is part of the MFP program to do so. My concern is carbs and keeping them low. At the end of the day when I know I am done eating some times I see just a little over 1000 or 1200 calories. Some people get upset or ask why so low. It is because I am full. I have no desire to eat more. I might not be losing weight very fast this way but I never go hungry.
Watching the video. I wonder how a person is to stay low carb and get that many servings of even low starch vegetables into your diet. This would thrill me because I LOVE vegetables.1 -
shadesofidaho wrote: »Watching the video. I wonder how a person is to stay low carb and get that many servings of even low starch vegetables into your diet. This would thrill me because I LOVE vegetables.
His version is low-carb but most likely not low enough to be ketogenic. It would be hard to stay under 20g (even net) while eating that many servings of veggies.0 -
I followed Jonathan Bailor's suggestions for about 6 months last year but I think I heard all the parts about cramming as many vegetables into you as possible, understood (perhaps not his fault, I'm happy to blame me) that protein was pretty well free slather as well and, other than butter and BPC I didn't hear a high fat message. My weight stayed stable, but I had seen all of the recipes using almond flour and xylitol to make cakes and desserts, and over used those too. I think that's why, on LCHF, I have avoided *anything sweet*. I'm afraid of my own addictive and over-consuming nature, so I suppose that has a bearing in all of this too. Well, for me it does. Not stating anyone else's journey.0
-
GrannyMayOz wrote: »I followed Jonathan Bailor's suggestions for about 6 months last year but I think I heard all the parts about cramming as many vegetables into you as possible, understood (perhaps not his fault, I'm happy to blame me) that protein was pretty well free slather as well and, other than butter and BPC I didn't hear a high fat message. My weight stayed stable, but I had seen all of the recipes using almond flour and xylitol to make cakes and desserts, and over used those too. I think that's why, on LCHF, I have avoided *anything sweet*. I'm afraid of my own addictive and over-consuming nature, so I suppose that has a bearing in all of this too. Well, for me it does. Not stating anyone else's journey.
The Calorie Myth? Yeah, it's definitely not a fat-promoting book. He's big on massive amounts of vegetables (10+ servings, as I recall) by any means necessary (and a big fan of green smoothies), and very much on the "only from whole food sources" (ie - the fat on a cut of meat) side when it comes to fats. His method is very much leaning more toward protein and vegetable-based carbohydrates. At least he's not entirely "low fat."0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »The Calorie Myth? Yeah, it's definitely not a fat-promoting book. He's big on massive amounts of vegetables (10+ servings, as I recall) by any means necessary (and a big fan of green smoothies), and very much on the "only from whole food sources" (ie - the fat on a cut of meat) side when it comes to fats. His method is very much leaning more toward protein and vegetable-based carbohydrates. At least he's not entirely "low fat."
Yes, that's the one Dragon. I guess he's similar to Paleo really and in some ways he perhaps readied me to hear the LCHF message when the time was right. I love LCHF for so many reasons but one of the reasons is that it's rather the 'I'm a rebel' statement in the food world
It shouldn't be, of course, but at the moment it is.
0 -
I try to post in the low carb threads in the main forums. Partly because I want to defend the low Carber and partly because the arrogance of the CICO people just gets me every time. Plus it's fun to poke the tiger once in awhile and I was brought up by a family of debaters.
Santana - great job on the loss.
I do it mainly to fight their disinformation, like the lifter who tries to play the "no carb" card when she pops into a thread, so it has to be explained like talking to a 2 year old that low and no are two different words.
Or the guy who knows everything and everyone else is an idiot for even questioning something he may do.
The one from the shirtless mafia?0 -
Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I try to post in the low carb threads in the main forums. Partly because I want to defend the low Carber and partly because the arrogance of the CICO people just gets me every time. Plus it's fun to poke the tiger once in awhile and I was brought up by a family of debaters.
Santana - great job on the loss.
I do it mainly to fight their disinformation, like the lifter who tries to play the "no carb" card when she pops into a thread, so it has to be explained like talking to a 2 year old that low and no are two different words.
Or the guy who knows everything and everyone else is an idiot for even questioning something he may do.
The one from the shirtless mafia?
Yeah, him. The arrogance in his posts make me want to "nuh, huh" every time, even when I agree with his message, lol.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
I keep trying to come up with something witty but I think it ultimately boils down to this.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).
That's what it seems like to me. It's an "enabler." But I might be slightly biased.
0 -
[/quote]
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).[/quote]
LOL! Agreed!0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).
I think that's what it comes down to. They want to eat crap and "get fit" and rather than just owning that they're doing that, they cry "If it fits in my macros!!" Except macros isn't the same as calories, macros are the breakdown of calories. I'm biased as well, though.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).
That's what it seems like to me. It's an "enabler." But I might be slightly biased.
There's another rabid anti-lc thread out there now. Someone asked how to stay below 50, got 2 pages of people yelling at her that it's dangerous to eat that few carbs, that she must not have understood her dietitian, etc etc. I always get the feeling, especially with the ones that go out of their way to seek those threads out, that it's more of a compulsion with them - they cannot mentally handle anyone doing anything differently than they do, or it somehow makes them insecure about their own choices. There's no other reason to explain why they're so unwilling to drop it.1 -
baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Slow carber chiming in. (One currently doing South Beach phase 1 as a "recommitment"). One thing I've NEVER understood among the counters: why they force themselves to eat 100 or 300 calories on a day when they aren't hungry. As if the body magically resets at midnight and something bad will happen if they don't "hit their goal".
I'm not speaking of the ones who are starving themselves, I mean the ones who claim that they add a snack or food to their day simply to satisfy a number. Even before losing I knew I had a rhythm. Some days I was hungrier, some days I wasn't. I certainly didn't force myself to eat more on the non-hungry days.
I've done this, and I'm not sure I understand either. Its like you have this feeling of, someone told you to eat a certain number of calories, therefore you must.
It's how I feel about "IIFYM" in general. Just now on the main boards someone asked about bulletproof coffee. Someone else said it was fine if the fat fit their macros.
My question was: what happens if your fat is above, other than a number turning red?
It often seems that IIFYM really means: eat protein.
Then why bother with all this macro chanting by the counters?
And, in reality, why the protein? Do most of them know why they're eating all the protein?
Because some "bro-bodybuilder-guru" (who also readily shows the world his nipples on a regular basis) said so.
In reality: IIFYM got traction here because you can eat donuts while feeling like you're doing something good for your body (the protein).
That's what it seems like to me. It's an "enabler." But I might be slightly biased.
There's another rabid anti-lc thread out there now. Someone asked how to stay below 50, got 2 pages of people yelling at her that it's dangerous to eat that few carbs, that she must not have understood her dietitian, etc etc. I always get the feeling, especially with the ones that go out of their way to seek those threads out, that it's more of a compulsion with them - they cannot mentally handle anyone doing anything differently than they do, or it somehow makes them insecure about their own choices. There's no other reason to explain why they're so unwilling to drop it.
They accuse everyone else of "demonizing foods" or "depriving themselves". Here's a D-word for them of which they are guilty: DENIAL. Every time they begin their knee-jerk accusations, all it makes me read is: "I feel guilty, because I know I'm triflin'. Must defend myself. Duck and roll! Put on the helmets! This is not a drill! I'm under attack! They're going to take my sugar away from me! Don't let them out alive!"
At which point I renew my decision to stay the heck away from the Litterbox. They are going to make me roll my eyes to the point they will get stuck.
0
This discussion has been closed.