Low carb dieters!
Options
Replies
-
I just don't understand why this is still a debate. We don't argue that the earth is flat any more...why are people still arguing whether a calorie deficit=weight loss?
Whatever way you accomplish that deficit is up to you, your chosen method won't affect your results.
Why? Because, SCIENCE! :cheers:
0 -
I actually did try low carb about three years ago and I was a miserable SOB for about six months....then I would binge on a bunch of carbs and feel like *kitten*....
but if someone can do it and it works then great for them ..
just don't tell me it is not calorie restriction or a superior method...Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
The only people arguing are the low carbers saying it is not CICO...
I thought she was saying what low carb is what works for her over straight calorie counting. I know I saw that in several of her posts, I may have missed the one where she said CICO doesn't work. And the low carbers rarely ever argue because most of the veterans are tired of beating their heads against a stone wall and the newbies get chased off. But by all means continue to argue away. I'm just saying it gets really old.
She has clearly stated several times that she wasn't losing weight while tracking and being in a "calorie restriction diet" but when she started eating low carb she actually increased her calories overall and started losing weight. And with all that she said she doesn't track her food but then that she does, then that she doesn't and finally that she doesn't because this site tracks it for her.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
the only one arguing it is not CICO is the OP ...
And the only ones that ever START the argument are the ones who don't eat low carb, and always when the OP has asked for advice from others following the same WOE. OP may not have articulated her point well, I can concede that. It doesn't negate the fact that non-low carbers jumped in to tell her how wrong she is when she specifically asked for low carb advice. I am not a heavy lifter, therefore I don't go into threads asking for advice on heavy lifting and start handing it out. I also don't go in there telling them that heavy lifting is all wrong and they should be doing, I don't know, yoga or something. Its the same concept. If you don't do low carb, why are you in a thread written by someone asking for low carb advice?
The arguments start when the non low carbers clarify why said low carb diet is working. Low carbers generally do not like to hear low carb works due to CICO...
The argument starts because people who don't eat low carb feel the need to give advice to those who do. I don't go into heavy lifting threads and demand someone tell me the exact science and terminology of lifting (please don't, I really don't care) and then argue that they have it all wrong. Why? I don't currently lift, I don't have much experience to speak about, and I haven't studied it. Therefore I leave it to those who do have experience and have studied it to hand out advice. It would be nice if the low carb WOE were given this same respect.
See the difference there is that if you did decide to do that we can actually respond with the science of why and how it works. Why? Because the science is a fact. We know how the musculoskeletal system works. If you argue the points we make we can rebut with actual science. In these low carb threads the information given to back up some wild claims are usually from biased websites or blogs and not actual science to say they are right and we are wrong. If you're going to sit here and make claims like the OP asks that make no sense, we have the right to question it
Yes, and I've clearly stated several times now that she was wrong to argue. My point is this whole thing started AFTER non-low carbers jumped in to give advice she wasn't asking for. We are now several pages into this thread and those doing most of the debating have yet to offer her any ideas or recipes.
Her is the thing, we all have choices. The OP had the choice to start this thread and all members have a choice as to what they will comment. Neither you nor I have control over that. The OP could have chosen to ignore the people that criticized her but instead she chose to engage them while making some pretty outlandish claims.
At that point we get to a crossroad (and I will include myself in the group), we will combat those claims and debate the actual science of all this because that's what we do, it's our choice. The OP chose to rebut or science with more claims and saying we don't understand anything. Then it goes in circles. Everyone chose to engage. Then comes you, you chose to intervene and complain about what is going on in the thread even though we all chose to participate on our own. Instead of saying to yourself that it wasn't worth it you decided to defend the OP because you felt it was your duty. You chose to do that. But you didn't have to.
Now, here we are, at another crossroad, do you continue to engage or do you say to yourself that we aren't worth your effort? Either way the forum will continue and the battle between good and evil who rage on forever.
I could say the same to you. No one has forced you to post. I have as much right to post as you, so I shall. My point still stands. You have no low carb advice to offer, so you argue the merits of low carb dieting in general.
actually if you read the thread we are arguing the merits of science, not low carb...
not sure where you missed that...
you seem to keep blatantly ignoring that OP was making claims that are based on pseudoscience...
She's too busy getting upset over what strangers post towards poor little OP as opposed to seeing that pseudoscience.
seriously, I guess she missed the part where I have said about five thousand times that I could care less if someone does low carb....*sigh*
She's still hung up on something you probably said 5 pages ago.
I think she is hung up on the fact that I dared to challenge an OP in a low carb thread, because I am not a low carber..even though she then went on to say that anyone can post in a public thread...
this whole thread is mind blowing and mind numbing at the same time.
They all seem to end up this way don't they...
It's good to know some things never change.
On a side note: nice new picture. I miss the gym, tell them I'll be back soon and back to normal.
What?! Are you at least back at work?0 -
Marianne802 wrote: »I think reducing carbs reduces most of the junk. Trying to think of one of my binge foods, treats, junk food, whatever you call it, that is not high in carbs. I don't have any craving for high protein junk food (is there such a thing? maybe cheesecake - still full of carbs). So for me, mostly restricting carbs in the form of sugar, pasta and yes grains, restricts most of the junk food I would go for.
There are days where I cheat, and I do allow myself planned treats, and for me a treat is something yummy and sweet - chocolate, piece of cheesecake, but the majority of my diet consists of fruit, vegetables and lean protein. And it is working, I am loosing 500g-700g a week, feel 100 times better, and as my previous comment, not losing muscle mass.
I think you are dead wrong…
0 -
I just don't understand why this is still a debate. We don't argue that the earth is flat any more...why are people still arguing whether a calorie deficit=weight loss?
Whatever way you accomplish that deficit is up to you, your chosen method won't affect your results.
Why? Because, SCIENCE! :cheers:
Yeah Mr. White! Science!0 -
Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
The only people arguing are the low carbers saying it is not CICO...
I thought she was saying what low carb is what works for her over straight calorie counting. I know I saw that in several of her posts, I may have missed the one where she said CICO doesn't work. And the low carbers rarely ever argue because most of the veterans are tired of beating their heads against a stone wall and the newbies get chased off. But by all means continue to argue away. I'm just saying it gets really old.
She has clearly stated several times that she wasn't losing weight while tracking and being in a "calorie restriction diet" but when she started eating low carb she actually increased her calories overall and started losing weight. And with all that she said she doesn't track her food but then that she does, then that she doesn't and finally that she doesn't because this site tracks it for her.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
the only one arguing it is not CICO is the OP ...
And the only ones that ever START the argument are the ones who don't eat low carb, and always when the OP has asked for advice from others following the same WOE. OP may not have articulated her point well, I can concede that. It doesn't negate the fact that non-low carbers jumped in to tell her how wrong she is when she specifically asked for low carb advice. I am not a heavy lifter, therefore I don't go into threads asking for advice on heavy lifting and start handing it out. I also don't go in there telling them that heavy lifting is all wrong and they should be doing, I don't know, yoga or something. Its the same concept. If you don't do low carb, why are you in a thread written by someone asking for low carb advice?
The arguments start when the non low carbers clarify why said low carb diet is working. Low carbers generally do not like to hear low carb works due to CICO...
The argument starts because people who don't eat low carb feel the need to give advice to those who do. I don't go into heavy lifting threads and demand someone tell me the exact science and terminology of lifting (please don't, I really don't care) and then argue that they have it all wrong. Why? I don't currently lift, I don't have much experience to speak about, and I haven't studied it. Therefore I leave it to those who do have experience and have studied it to hand out advice. It would be nice if the low carb WOE were given this same respect.
See the difference there is that if you did decide to do that we can actually respond with the science of why and how it works. Why? Because the science is a fact. We know how the musculoskeletal system works. If you argue the points we make we can rebut with actual science. In these low carb threads the information given to back up some wild claims are usually from biased websites or blogs and not actual science to say they are right and we are wrong. If you're going to sit here and make claims like the OP asks that make no sense, we have the right to question it
Yes, and I've clearly stated several times now that she was wrong to argue. My point is this whole thing started AFTER non-low carbers jumped in to give advice she wasn't asking for. We are now several pages into this thread and those doing most of the debating have yet to offer her any ideas or recipes.
Her is the thing, we all have choices. The OP had the choice to start this thread and all members have a choice as to what they will comment. Neither you nor I have control over that. The OP could have chosen to ignore the people that criticized her but instead she chose to engage them while making some pretty outlandish claims.
At that point we get to a crossroad (and I will include myself in the group), we will combat those claims and debate the actual science of all this because that's what we do, it's our choice. The OP chose to rebut or science with more claims and saying we don't understand anything. Then it goes in circles. Everyone chose to engage. Then comes you, you chose to intervene and complain about what is going on in the thread even though we all chose to participate on our own. Instead of saying to yourself that it wasn't worth it you decided to defend the OP because you felt it was your duty. You chose to do that. But you didn't have to.
Now, here we are, at another crossroad, do you continue to engage or do you say to yourself that we aren't worth your effort? Either way the forum will continue and the battle between good and evil who rage on forever.
I think I'll continue to engage, thanks. Feel free to ignore me if I hit a nerve.
Nope, you don't posses the ability to strike my nerves. So if you've decided to keep engaging then you might want to stop crying about what other people post.
Pot meet kettle. If you don't don't like my posts feel free to disengage yourself. I'm going to continue to stick up for low carbers so get used to it or get over it.
0 -
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I just don't understand why this is still a debate. We don't argue that the earth is flat any more...why are people still arguing whether a calorie deficit=weight loss?
Whatever way you accomplish that deficit is up to you, your chosen method won't affect your results.
Why? Because, SCIENCE! :cheers:
Yeah Mr. White! Science!
It works for cooking meth as well!0 -
People confuse a unit of energy with food all the time, hence the confusion.I just don't understand why this is still a debate. We don't argue that the earth is flat any more...why are people still arguing whether a calorie deficit=weight loss?
Whatever way you accomplish that deficit is up to you, your chosen method won't affect your results.
Why? Because, SCIENCE! :cheers:
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
People confuse a unit of energy with food all the time, hence the confusion.I just don't understand why this is still a debate. We don't argue that the earth is flat any more...why are people still arguing whether a calorie deficit=weight loss?
Whatever way you accomplish that deficit is up to you, your chosen method won't affect your results.
Why? Because, SCIENCE! :cheers:
Meaning what, exactly?0 -
Calories are a measurement, food is about nutrition, culture et al.neanderthin wrote: »
People confuse a unit of energy with food all the time, hence the confusion.I just don't understand why this is still a debate. We don't argue that the earth is flat any more...why are people still arguing whether a calorie deficit=weight loss?
Whatever way you accomplish that deficit is up to you, your chosen method won't affect your results.
Why? Because, SCIENCE! :cheers:
Meaning what, exactly?
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Calories are a measurement, food is about nutrition, culture et al.neanderthin wrote: »
People confuse a unit of energy with food all the time, hence the confusion.I just don't understand why this is still a debate. We don't argue that the earth is flat any more...why are people still arguing whether a calorie deficit=weight loss?
Whatever way you accomplish that deficit is up to you, your chosen method won't affect your results.
Why? Because, SCIENCE! :cheers:
Meaning what, exactly?
Ah, true.0 -
Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
The only people arguing are the low carbers saying it is not CICO...
I thought she was saying what low carb is what works for her over straight calorie counting. I know I saw that in several of her posts, I may have missed the one where she said CICO doesn't work. And the low carbers rarely ever argue because most of the veterans are tired of beating their heads against a stone wall and the newbies get chased off. But by all means continue to argue away. I'm just saying it gets really old.
She has clearly stated several times that she wasn't losing weight while tracking and being in a "calorie restriction diet" but when she started eating low carb she actually increased her calories overall and started losing weight. And with all that she said she doesn't track her food but then that she does, then that she doesn't and finally that she doesn't because this site tracks it for her.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
the only one arguing it is not CICO is the OP ...
And the only ones that ever START the argument are the ones who don't eat low carb, and always when the OP has asked for advice from others following the same WOE. OP may not have articulated her point well, I can concede that. It doesn't negate the fact that non-low carbers jumped in to tell her how wrong she is when she specifically asked for low carb advice. I am not a heavy lifter, therefore I don't go into threads asking for advice on heavy lifting and start handing it out. I also don't go in there telling them that heavy lifting is all wrong and they should be doing, I don't know, yoga or something. Its the same concept. If you don't do low carb, why are you in a thread written by someone asking for low carb advice?
The arguments start when the non low carbers clarify why said low carb diet is working. Low carbers generally do not like to hear low carb works due to CICO...
The argument starts because people who don't eat low carb feel the need to give advice to those who do. I don't go into heavy lifting threads and demand someone tell me the exact science and terminology of lifting (please don't, I really don't care) and then argue that they have it all wrong. Why? I don't currently lift, I don't have much experience to speak about, and I haven't studied it. Therefore I leave it to those who do have experience and have studied it to hand out advice. It would be nice if the low carb WOE were given this same respect.
See the difference there is that if you did decide to do that we can actually respond with the science of why and how it works. Why? Because the science is a fact. We know how the musculoskeletal system works. If you argue the points we make we can rebut with actual science. In these low carb threads the information given to back up some wild claims are usually from biased websites or blogs and not actual science to say they are right and we are wrong. If you're going to sit here and make claims like the OP asks that make no sense, we have the right to question it
Yes, and I've clearly stated several times now that she was wrong to argue. My point is this whole thing started AFTER non-low carbers jumped in to give advice she wasn't asking for. We are now several pages into this thread and those doing most of the debating have yet to offer her any ideas or recipes.
Her is the thing, we all have choices. The OP had the choice to start this thread and all members have a choice as to what they will comment. Neither you nor I have control over that. The OP could have chosen to ignore the people that criticized her but instead she chose to engage them while making some pretty outlandish claims.
At that point we get to a crossroad (and I will include myself in the group), we will combat those claims and debate the actual science of all this because that's what we do, it's our choice. The OP chose to rebut or science with more claims and saying we don't understand anything. Then it goes in circles. Everyone chose to engage. Then comes you, you chose to intervene and complain about what is going on in the thread even though we all chose to participate on our own. Instead of saying to yourself that it wasn't worth it you decided to defend the OP because you felt it was your duty. You chose to do that. But you didn't have to.
Now, here we are, at another crossroad, do you continue to engage or do you say to yourself that we aren't worth your effort? Either way the forum will continue and the battle between good and evil who rage on forever.
I think I'll continue to engage, thanks. Feel free to ignore me if I hit a nerve.
Nope, you don't posses the ability to strike my nerves. So if you've decided to keep engaging then you might want to stop crying about what other people post.
Pot meet kettle. If you don't don't like my posts feel free to disengage yourself. I'm going to continue to stick up for low carbers so get used to it or get over it.
Low carbers unite!!!
so you are sticking up for the pseudo science low carbers then like the OP …got ya...0 -
Science seems to support satiety for lower carb. Personally I don't see a problem in selecting foods that promote satiety as a weight loss solution. Saying that, going to an extreme is for the most part not necessary for satiety to kick in for most people. For me it was and still is in the 20-25% range and when I did try going really low, life wasn't worth living and it didn't make any difference in my ad labitum eating anyway.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
The only people arguing are the low carbers saying it is not CICO...
I thought she was saying what low carb is what works for her over straight calorie counting. I know I saw that in several of her posts, I may have missed the one where she said CICO doesn't work. And the low carbers rarely ever argue because most of the veterans are tired of beating their heads against a stone wall and the newbies get chased off. But by all means continue to argue away. I'm just saying it gets really old.
She has clearly stated several times that she wasn't losing weight while tracking and being in a "calorie restriction diet" but when she started eating low carb she actually increased her calories overall and started losing weight. And with all that she said she doesn't track her food but then that she does, then that she doesn't and finally that she doesn't because this site tracks it for her.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
the only one arguing it is not CICO is the OP ...
And the only ones that ever START the argument are the ones who don't eat low carb, and always when the OP has asked for advice from others following the same WOE. OP may not have articulated her point well, I can concede that. It doesn't negate the fact that non-low carbers jumped in to tell her how wrong she is when she specifically asked for low carb advice. I am not a heavy lifter, therefore I don't go into threads asking for advice on heavy lifting and start handing it out. I also don't go in there telling them that heavy lifting is all wrong and they should be doing, I don't know, yoga or something. Its the same concept. If you don't do low carb, why are you in a thread written by someone asking for low carb advice?
The arguments start when the non low carbers clarify why said low carb diet is working. Low carbers generally do not like to hear low carb works due to CICO...
The argument starts because people who don't eat low carb feel the need to give advice to those who do. I don't go into heavy lifting threads and demand someone tell me the exact science and terminology of lifting (please don't, I really don't care) and then argue that they have it all wrong. Why? I don't currently lift, I don't have much experience to speak about, and I haven't studied it. Therefore I leave it to those who do have experience and have studied it to hand out advice. It would be nice if the low carb WOE were given this same respect.
See the difference there is that if you did decide to do that we can actually respond with the science of why and how it works. Why? Because the science is a fact. We know how the musculoskeletal system works. If you argue the points we make we can rebut with actual science. In these low carb threads the information given to back up some wild claims are usually from biased websites or blogs and not actual science to say they are right and we are wrong. If you're going to sit here and make claims like the OP asks that make no sense, we have the right to question it
Yes, and I've clearly stated several times now that she was wrong to argue. My point is this whole thing started AFTER non-low carbers jumped in to give advice she wasn't asking for. We are now several pages into this thread and those doing most of the debating have yet to offer her any ideas or recipes.
Her is the thing, we all have choices. The OP had the choice to start this thread and all members have a choice as to what they will comment. Neither you nor I have control over that. The OP could have chosen to ignore the people that criticized her but instead she chose to engage them while making some pretty outlandish claims.
At that point we get to a crossroad (and I will include myself in the group), we will combat those claims and debate the actual science of all this because that's what we do, it's our choice. The OP chose to rebut or science with more claims and saying we don't understand anything. Then it goes in circles. Everyone chose to engage. Then comes you, you chose to intervene and complain about what is going on in the thread even though we all chose to participate on our own. Instead of saying to yourself that it wasn't worth it you decided to defend the OP because you felt it was your duty. You chose to do that. But you didn't have to.
Now, here we are, at another crossroad, do you continue to engage or do you say to yourself that we aren't worth your effort? Either way the forum will continue and the battle between good and evil who rage on forever.
I think I'll continue to engage, thanks. Feel free to ignore me if I hit a nerve.
Nope, you don't posses the ability to strike my nerves. So if you've decided to keep engaging then you might want to stop crying about what other people post.
Pot meet kettle. If you don't don't like my posts feel free to disengage yourself. I'm going to continue to stick up for low carbers so get used to it or get over it.
Low carbers unite!!!
so you are sticking up for the pseudo science low carbers then like the OP …got ya...
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Science seems to support satiety for lower carb. Personally I don't see a problem in selecting foods that promote satiety as a weight loss solution. Saying that, going to an extreme is for the most part not necessary for satiety to kick in for most people. For me it was and still is in the 20-25% range and when I did try going really low, life wasn't worth living and it didn't make any difference in my ad labitum eating anyway.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
The only people arguing are the low carbers saying it is not CICO...
I thought she was saying what low carb is what works for her over straight calorie counting. I know I saw that in several of her posts, I may have missed the one where she said CICO doesn't work. And the low carbers rarely ever argue because most of the veterans are tired of beating their heads against a stone wall and the newbies get chased off. But by all means continue to argue away. I'm just saying it gets really old.
She has clearly stated several times that she wasn't losing weight while tracking and being in a "calorie restriction diet" but when she started eating low carb she actually increased her calories overall and started losing weight. And with all that she said she doesn't track her food but then that she does, then that she doesn't and finally that she doesn't because this site tracks it for her.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
the only one arguing it is not CICO is the OP ...
And the only ones that ever START the argument are the ones who don't eat low carb, and always when the OP has asked for advice from others following the same WOE. OP may not have articulated her point well, I can concede that. It doesn't negate the fact that non-low carbers jumped in to tell her how wrong she is when she specifically asked for low carb advice. I am not a heavy lifter, therefore I don't go into threads asking for advice on heavy lifting and start handing it out. I also don't go in there telling them that heavy lifting is all wrong and they should be doing, I don't know, yoga or something. Its the same concept. If you don't do low carb, why are you in a thread written by someone asking for low carb advice?
The arguments start when the non low carbers clarify why said low carb diet is working. Low carbers generally do not like to hear low carb works due to CICO...
The argument starts because people who don't eat low carb feel the need to give advice to those who do. I don't go into heavy lifting threads and demand someone tell me the exact science and terminology of lifting (please don't, I really don't care) and then argue that they have it all wrong. Why? I don't currently lift, I don't have much experience to speak about, and I haven't studied it. Therefore I leave it to those who do have experience and have studied it to hand out advice. It would be nice if the low carb WOE were given this same respect.
See the difference there is that if you did decide to do that we can actually respond with the science of why and how it works. Why? Because the science is a fact. We know how the musculoskeletal system works. If you argue the points we make we can rebut with actual science. In these low carb threads the information given to back up some wild claims are usually from biased websites or blogs and not actual science to say they are right and we are wrong. If you're going to sit here and make claims like the OP asks that make no sense, we have the right to question it
Yes, and I've clearly stated several times now that she was wrong to argue. My point is this whole thing started AFTER non-low carbers jumped in to give advice she wasn't asking for. We are now several pages into this thread and those doing most of the debating have yet to offer her any ideas or recipes.
Her is the thing, we all have choices. The OP had the choice to start this thread and all members have a choice as to what they will comment. Neither you nor I have control over that. The OP could have chosen to ignore the people that criticized her but instead she chose to engage them while making some pretty outlandish claims.
At that point we get to a crossroad (and I will include myself in the group), we will combat those claims and debate the actual science of all this because that's what we do, it's our choice. The OP chose to rebut or science with more claims and saying we don't understand anything. Then it goes in circles. Everyone chose to engage. Then comes you, you chose to intervene and complain about what is going on in the thread even though we all chose to participate on our own. Instead of saying to yourself that it wasn't worth it you decided to defend the OP because you felt it was your duty. You chose to do that. But you didn't have to.
Now, here we are, at another crossroad, do you continue to engage or do you say to yourself that we aren't worth your effort? Either way the forum will continue and the battle between good and evil who rage on forever.
I think I'll continue to engage, thanks. Feel free to ignore me if I hit a nerve.
Nope, you don't posses the ability to strike my nerves. So if you've decided to keep engaging then you might want to stop crying about what other people post.
Pot meet kettle. If you don't don't like my posts feel free to disengage yourself. I'm going to continue to stick up for low carbers so get used to it or get over it.
Low carbers unite!!!
so you are sticking up for the pseudo science low carbers then like the OP …got ya...
oh I here you ..
I am talking about OP's claims..that she did not calorie restrict and ONLY lost weight on low carb ..and that if she ate 1200 regular carb and 1200 low carb she only lost on 1200 low carb, and on and on …..
if you want to have fun read through pages one through five….
0 -
Gotcha, I just read the original post.neanderthin wrote: »
Science seems to support satiety for lower carb. Personally I don't see a problem in selecting foods that promote satiety as a weight loss solution. Saying that, going to an extreme is for the most part not necessary for satiety to kick in for most people. For me it was and still is in the 20-25% range and when I did try going really low, life wasn't worth living and it didn't make any difference in my ad labitum eating anyway.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
The only people arguing are the low carbers saying it is not CICO...
I thought she was saying what low carb is what works for her over straight calorie counting. I know I saw that in several of her posts, I may have missed the one where she said CICO doesn't work. And the low carbers rarely ever argue because most of the veterans are tired of beating their heads against a stone wall and the newbies get chased off. But by all means continue to argue away. I'm just saying it gets really old.
She has clearly stated several times that she wasn't losing weight while tracking and being in a "calorie restriction diet" but when she started eating low carb she actually increased her calories overall and started losing weight. And with all that she said she doesn't track her food but then that she does, then that she doesn't and finally that she doesn't because this site tracks it for her.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
the only one arguing it is not CICO is the OP ...
And the only ones that ever START the argument are the ones who don't eat low carb, and always when the OP has asked for advice from others following the same WOE. OP may not have articulated her point well, I can concede that. It doesn't negate the fact that non-low carbers jumped in to tell her how wrong she is when she specifically asked for low carb advice. I am not a heavy lifter, therefore I don't go into threads asking for advice on heavy lifting and start handing it out. I also don't go in there telling them that heavy lifting is all wrong and they should be doing, I don't know, yoga or something. Its the same concept. If you don't do low carb, why are you in a thread written by someone asking for low carb advice?
The arguments start when the non low carbers clarify why said low carb diet is working. Low carbers generally do not like to hear low carb works due to CICO...
The argument starts because people who don't eat low carb feel the need to give advice to those who do. I don't go into heavy lifting threads and demand someone tell me the exact science and terminology of lifting (please don't, I really don't care) and then argue that they have it all wrong. Why? I don't currently lift, I don't have much experience to speak about, and I haven't studied it. Therefore I leave it to those who do have experience and have studied it to hand out advice. It would be nice if the low carb WOE were given this same respect.
See the difference there is that if you did decide to do that we can actually respond with the science of why and how it works. Why? Because the science is a fact. We know how the musculoskeletal system works. If you argue the points we make we can rebut with actual science. In these low carb threads the information given to back up some wild claims are usually from biased websites or blogs and not actual science to say they are right and we are wrong. If you're going to sit here and make claims like the OP asks that make no sense, we have the right to question it
Yes, and I've clearly stated several times now that she was wrong to argue. My point is this whole thing started AFTER non-low carbers jumped in to give advice she wasn't asking for. We are now several pages into this thread and those doing most of the debating have yet to offer her any ideas or recipes.
Her is the thing, we all have choices. The OP had the choice to start this thread and all members have a choice as to what they will comment. Neither you nor I have control over that. The OP could have chosen to ignore the people that criticized her but instead she chose to engage them while making some pretty outlandish claims.
At that point we get to a crossroad (and I will include myself in the group), we will combat those claims and debate the actual science of all this because that's what we do, it's our choice. The OP chose to rebut or science with more claims and saying we don't understand anything. Then it goes in circles. Everyone chose to engage. Then comes you, you chose to intervene and complain about what is going on in the thread even though we all chose to participate on our own. Instead of saying to yourself that it wasn't worth it you decided to defend the OP because you felt it was your duty. You chose to do that. But you didn't have to.
Now, here we are, at another crossroad, do you continue to engage or do you say to yourself that we aren't worth your effort? Either way the forum will continue and the battle between good and evil who rage on forever.
I think I'll continue to engage, thanks. Feel free to ignore me if I hit a nerve.
Nope, you don't posses the ability to strike my nerves. So if you've decided to keep engaging then you might want to stop crying about what other people post.
Pot meet kettle. If you don't don't like my posts feel free to disengage yourself. I'm going to continue to stick up for low carbers so get used to it or get over it.
Low carbers unite!!!
so you are sticking up for the pseudo science low carbers then like the OP …got ya...
oh I here you ..
I am talking about OP's claims..that she did not calorie restrict and ONLY lost weight on low carb ..and that if she ate 1200 regular carb and 1200 low carb she only lost on 1200 low carb, and on and on …..
if you want to have fun read through pages one through five….
0 -
Basically why I don't involve myself much in these types of debates. Water weight, TEF, increasing protein, changes in attitude towards lifestyle, rededicating ones self after plateauing etc is the fuel that supports the pseudo science surrounding low carb diets...paleo especially.neanderthin wrote: »
Science seems to support satiety for lower carb. Personally I don't see a problem in selecting foods that promote satiety as a weight loss solution. Saying that, going to an extreme is for the most part not necessary for satiety to kick in for most people. For me it was and still is in the 20-25% range and when I did try going really low, life wasn't worth living and it didn't make any difference in my ad labitum eating anyway.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
The only people arguing are the low carbers saying it is not CICO...
I thought she was saying what low carb is what works for her over straight calorie counting. I know I saw that in several of her posts, I may have missed the one where she said CICO doesn't work. And the low carbers rarely ever argue because most of the veterans are tired of beating their heads against a stone wall and the newbies get chased off. But by all means continue to argue away. I'm just saying it gets really old.
She has clearly stated several times that she wasn't losing weight while tracking and being in a "calorie restriction diet" but when she started eating low carb she actually increased her calories overall and started losing weight. And with all that she said she doesn't track her food but then that she does, then that she doesn't and finally that she doesn't because this site tracks it for her.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
the only one arguing it is not CICO is the OP ...
And the only ones that ever START the argument are the ones who don't eat low carb, and always when the OP has asked for advice from others following the same WOE. OP may not have articulated her point well, I can concede that. It doesn't negate the fact that non-low carbers jumped in to tell her how wrong she is when she specifically asked for low carb advice. I am not a heavy lifter, therefore I don't go into threads asking for advice on heavy lifting and start handing it out. I also don't go in there telling them that heavy lifting is all wrong and they should be doing, I don't know, yoga or something. Its the same concept. If you don't do low carb, why are you in a thread written by someone asking for low carb advice?
The arguments start when the non low carbers clarify why said low carb diet is working. Low carbers generally do not like to hear low carb works due to CICO...
The argument starts because people who don't eat low carb feel the need to give advice to those who do. I don't go into heavy lifting threads and demand someone tell me the exact science and terminology of lifting (please don't, I really don't care) and then argue that they have it all wrong. Why? I don't currently lift, I don't have much experience to speak about, and I haven't studied it. Therefore I leave it to those who do have experience and have studied it to hand out advice. It would be nice if the low carb WOE were given this same respect.
See the difference there is that if you did decide to do that we can actually respond with the science of why and how it works. Why? Because the science is a fact. We know how the musculoskeletal system works. If you argue the points we make we can rebut with actual science. In these low carb threads the information given to back up some wild claims are usually from biased websites or blogs and not actual science to say they are right and we are wrong. If you're going to sit here and make claims like the OP asks that make no sense, we have the right to question it
Yes, and I've clearly stated several times now that she was wrong to argue. My point is this whole thing started AFTER non-low carbers jumped in to give advice she wasn't asking for. We are now several pages into this thread and those doing most of the debating have yet to offer her any ideas or recipes.
Her is the thing, we all have choices. The OP had the choice to start this thread and all members have a choice as to what they will comment. Neither you nor I have control over that. The OP could have chosen to ignore the people that criticized her but instead she chose to engage them while making some pretty outlandish claims.
At that point we get to a crossroad (and I will include myself in the group), we will combat those claims and debate the actual science of all this because that's what we do, it's our choice. The OP chose to rebut or science with more claims and saying we don't understand anything. Then it goes in circles. Everyone chose to engage. Then comes you, you chose to intervene and complain about what is going on in the thread even though we all chose to participate on our own. Instead of saying to yourself that it wasn't worth it you decided to defend the OP because you felt it was your duty. You chose to do that. But you didn't have to.
Now, here we are, at another crossroad, do you continue to engage or do you say to yourself that we aren't worth your effort? Either way the forum will continue and the battle between good and evil who rage on forever.
I think I'll continue to engage, thanks. Feel free to ignore me if I hit a nerve.
Nope, you don't posses the ability to strike my nerves. So if you've decided to keep engaging then you might want to stop crying about what other people post.
Pot meet kettle. If you don't don't like my posts feel free to disengage yourself. I'm going to continue to stick up for low carbers so get used to it or get over it.
Low carbers unite!!!
so you are sticking up for the pseudo science low carbers then like the OP …got ya...
oh I here you ..
I am talking about OP's claims..that she did not calorie restrict and ONLY lost weight on low carb ..and that if she ate 1200 regular carb and 1200 low carb she only lost on 1200 low carb, and on and on …..
if you want to have fun read through pages one through five….
Actually what the OP said was that she ate more calories on low carb and lost weight and when she ate less calories on non low carb she didn't lose anything. Also that she didn't track calories but she did but she didn't and that this app did it for her. Which makes sugarbeat defending her even more hilarious.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Basically why I don't involve myself much in these types of debates. Water weight, TEF, increasing protein, changes in attitude towards lifestyle, rededicating ones self after plateauing etc is the fuel that supports the pseudo science surrounding low carb diets...paleo especially.neanderthin wrote: »
Science seems to support satiety for lower carb. Personally I don't see a problem in selecting foods that promote satiety as a weight loss solution. Saying that, going to an extreme is for the most part not necessary for satiety to kick in for most people. For me it was and still is in the 20-25% range and when I did try going really low, life wasn't worth living and it didn't make any difference in my ad labitum eating anyway.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
The only people arguing are the low carbers saying it is not CICO...
I thought she was saying what low carb is what works for her over straight calorie counting. I know I saw that in several of her posts, I may have missed the one where she said CICO doesn't work. And the low carbers rarely ever argue because most of the veterans are tired of beating their heads against a stone wall and the newbies get chased off. But by all means continue to argue away. I'm just saying it gets really old.
She has clearly stated several times that she wasn't losing weight while tracking and being in a "calorie restriction diet" but when she started eating low carb she actually increased her calories overall and started losing weight. And with all that she said she doesn't track her food but then that she does, then that she doesn't and finally that she doesn't because this site tracks it for her.Man this gets old. Low carb diets TEND (but not necessarily WILL) to put people in a deficit. Its just a smaller deficit with more satisfaction and less hunger. Its still CICO, not sure why everyone argues about it. OP, seriously, if you truly want ideas and suggestions from people who have done it successfully, use the link and come find the low carb group. You are never going to win this argument. Ever.
the only one arguing it is not CICO is the OP ...
And the only ones that ever START the argument are the ones who don't eat low carb, and always when the OP has asked for advice from others following the same WOE. OP may not have articulated her point well, I can concede that. It doesn't negate the fact that non-low carbers jumped in to tell her how wrong she is when she specifically asked for low carb advice. I am not a heavy lifter, therefore I don't go into threads asking for advice on heavy lifting and start handing it out. I also don't go in there telling them that heavy lifting is all wrong and they should be doing, I don't know, yoga or something. Its the same concept. If you don't do low carb, why are you in a thread written by someone asking for low carb advice?
The arguments start when the non low carbers clarify why said low carb diet is working. Low carbers generally do not like to hear low carb works due to CICO...
The argument starts because people who don't eat low carb feel the need to give advice to those who do. I don't go into heavy lifting threads and demand someone tell me the exact science and terminology of lifting (please don't, I really don't care) and then argue that they have it all wrong. Why? I don't currently lift, I don't have much experience to speak about, and I haven't studied it. Therefore I leave it to those who do have experience and have studied it to hand out advice. It would be nice if the low carb WOE were given this same respect.
See the difference there is that if you did decide to do that we can actually respond with the science of why and how it works. Why? Because the science is a fact. We know how the musculoskeletal system works. If you argue the points we make we can rebut with actual science. In these low carb threads the information given to back up some wild claims are usually from biased websites or blogs and not actual science to say they are right and we are wrong. If you're going to sit here and make claims like the OP asks that make no sense, we have the right to question it
Yes, and I've clearly stated several times now that she was wrong to argue. My point is this whole thing started AFTER non-low carbers jumped in to give advice she wasn't asking for. We are now several pages into this thread and those doing most of the debating have yet to offer her any ideas or recipes.
Her is the thing, we all have choices. The OP had the choice to start this thread and all members have a choice as to what they will comment. Neither you nor I have control over that. The OP could have chosen to ignore the people that criticized her but instead she chose to engage them while making some pretty outlandish claims.
At that point we get to a crossroad (and I will include myself in the group), we will combat those claims and debate the actual science of all this because that's what we do, it's our choice. The OP chose to rebut or science with more claims and saying we don't understand anything. Then it goes in circles. Everyone chose to engage. Then comes you, you chose to intervene and complain about what is going on in the thread even though we all chose to participate on our own. Instead of saying to yourself that it wasn't worth it you decided to defend the OP because you felt it was your duty. You chose to do that. But you didn't have to.
Now, here we are, at another crossroad, do you continue to engage or do you say to yourself that we aren't worth your effort? Either way the forum will continue and the battle between good and evil who rage on forever.
I think I'll continue to engage, thanks. Feel free to ignore me if I hit a nerve.
Nope, you don't posses the ability to strike my nerves. So if you've decided to keep engaging then you might want to stop crying about what other people post.
Pot meet kettle. If you don't don't like my posts feel free to disengage yourself. I'm going to continue to stick up for low carbers so get used to it or get over it.
Low carbers unite!!!
so you are sticking up for the pseudo science low carbers then like the OP …got ya...
oh I here you ..
I am talking about OP's claims..that she did not calorie restrict and ONLY lost weight on low carb ..and that if she ate 1200 regular carb and 1200 low carb she only lost on 1200 low carb, and on and on …..
if you want to have fun read through pages one through five….
Actually what the OP said was that she ate more calories on low carb and lost weight and when she ate less calories on non low carb she didn't lose anything. Also that she didn't track calories but she did but she didn't and that this app did it for her. Which makes sugarbeat defending her even more hilarious.
yea, I probably should have disengaged on page three…
but I was so mind blown by some of the assertions being made that I had to challenge...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions