Let's clear up a misconception
Options
Replies
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Ahh forget it..
I don't know why I decided to come into the forums today.
It really is pointless. I don't know why I waste my time.
it is a slow work day ...0 -
For those who are looking for particular hard to find food items, the internet is your friend. There are sites for retro candies, hard to find food items, gourmet grocery, etc. Googling will get you tons of these. Before I was diagnosed borderline diabetic and had to kick the candy to the curb, I used to buy crazy flavors of salt water taffy from those sites for holidays. If you are in a non Peep location and you really need to experience Peeps, you can probably find them online too.0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »Lies. I eat 3 cups of white sugar a day and nothing else.
ETA: Except of Sundays. On Sundays I eat 58.9 yellow marshmallow peeps.
Only yellow peeps? Hear they are coming out with Peep flavored milk. You can get your sugar AND your calcium in one shot.
How do they milk the little chickens? Or do they feed the peeps to the cows, then milk the cows?
No,,,,, they make them sword fight in the microwave hunger games style then the loser goes to the milking boiler! lol0 -
emily_stew wrote: »MrCoolGrim wrote: »
YOU DID IT!!!
Going a little gif crazy now0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Ahh forget it..
I don't know why I decided to come into the forums today.
It really is pointless. I don't know why I waste my time.
it is a slow work day ...
It is. I'm putting off writing reports and I'm writing points on the internet that are going to shoot over people's heads instead.
I really should re-evaluate my priorities.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
Why is it ridculous if it helps someone get to a calorie deficit? Because YOU don't agree with it?
Because a lot of time it doesn't help them. It's someone crying about missing their bread or making it clear that they think they need to do something that is in reality only making weight loss harder.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Right - if it works for them, and they're not on here fear mongering and spreading their broscience all over the place, then it is not an issue.
However, I completely agree with Emily that it is not necessary, and I don't really see why pointing out to someone that what they're doing isn't necessary is a bad thing. The poster may not realize that it's not necessary, they could've gotten some bad information from somewhere and are using it as gospel, or there could be lurkers in the thread who will think that it is necessary to cut out that food group for success.
The thing is that many people who completely cut a food group from their diet don't realize that it will likely not be sustainable unless they have a medical issue requiring it or if they have serious ethical reasons for cutting it out. People are being informative and helpful when they point that out.
I'm sure that makes them feel better about their 3 pages of arguing, but really, they're not. If someone has to screw up, they have to screw up on their own. What makes a complete stranger better qualified to know what other mental battles they're having with their WOE? Or what physical things they feel based on how and when they eat - some people drag all day without carbs first thing, some drag all day if they have them before dinner, some feel sick if they eat anything before noon. If that "helpful" advice of telling someone they're being ridiculous, or replying "lol no" when they ask how to cut back on something just makes them give up instead, are they still helpful? If it makes them completely give up whatever they were doing and start a whole new WOE from scratch, unprepared and unconvinced, and they fail again, is that informative?
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Lies. I eat 3 cups of white sugar a day and nothing else.
ETA: Except of Sundays. On Sundays I eat 58.9 yellow marshmallow peeps.
Only yellow peeps? Hear they are coming out with Peep flavored milk. You can get your sugar AND your calcium in one shot.
How do they milk the little chickens? Or do they feed the peeps to the cows, then milk the cows?
THIS!!! It made me LOL so much I snorted and now I'm getting funny looks from my office mates!0 -
I think Peeps taste gross also, but you can still have fun with them. Put a lone peep in the center of a great big plate and put it in the microwave. Turn on microwave and watch. Mondo expando action. A plus, if you're a little tipsy first it's hilarious lol XD
Even better- put two peeps in the microwave with a toothpick poked into the front of each one, then turn on microwave and you have peeps sword fight!!
Much better than eating them - gross!0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Right - if it works for them, and they're not on here fear mongering and spreading their broscience all over the place, then it is not an issue.
However, I completely agree with Emily that it is not necessary, and I don't really see why pointing out to someone that what they're doing isn't necessary is a bad thing. The poster may not realize that it's not necessary, they could've gotten some bad information from somewhere and are using it as gospel, or there could be lurkers in the thread who will think that it is necessary to cut out that food group for success.
The thing is that many people who completely cut a food group from their diet don't realize that it will likely not be sustainable unless they have a medical issue requiring it or if they have serious ethical reasons for cutting it out. People are being informative and helpful when they point that out.
I'm sure that makes them feel better about their 3 pages of arguing, but really, they're not. If someone has to screw up, they have to screw up on their own. What makes a complete stranger better qualified to know what other mental battles they're having with their WOE? Or what physical things they feel based on how and when they eat - some people drag all day without carbs first thing, some drag all day if they have them before dinner, some feel sick if they eat anything before noon. If that "helpful" advice of telling someone they're being ridiculous, or replying "lol no" when they ask how to cut back on something just makes them give up instead, are they still helpful? If it makes them completely give up whatever they were doing and start a whole new WOE from scratch, unprepared and unconvinced, and they fail again, is that informative?
You are overstating and misremembering the context of "lol no" responses.
So they don't fit your scenario. How do you expect someone to respond when you are constructing straw men?
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Right - if it works for them, and they're not on here fear mongering and spreading their broscience all over the place, then it is not an issue.
However, I completely agree with Emily that it is not necessary, and I don't really see why pointing out to someone that what they're doing isn't necessary is a bad thing. The poster may not realize that it's not necessary, they could've gotten some bad information from somewhere and are using it as gospel, or there could be lurkers in the thread who will think that it is necessary to cut out that food group for success.
The thing is that many people who completely cut a food group from their diet don't realize that it will likely not be sustainable unless they have a medical issue requiring it or if they have serious ethical reasons for cutting it out. People are being informative and helpful when they point that out.
...But people stating that low carb/IF/vegan/eating only cookies is what works for them are not saying it is necessary to lose weight? It may not be sustainable for you but there are several people it IS sustainable for. I do understand calorie deficit. One method isn't necessary...calorie deficit is.
I also never said all OP's have to be validated. The point, if you actually read what I said, is people CANNOT just make simple statements such as "I'm eating low carb and its working for me" without being attacked. Its not saying its necessary/the only way/the healthier way. Its stating what is working for THEM.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »However, I completely agree with Emily that it is not necessary, and I don't really see why pointing out to someone that what they're doing isn't necessary is a bad thing. The poster may not realize that it's not necessary, they could've gotten some bad information from somewhere and are using it as gospel, or there could be lurkers in the thread who will think that it is necessary to cut out that food group for success.
The thing is that many people who completely cut a food group from their diet don't realize that it will likely not be sustainable unless they have a medical issue requiring it or if they have serious ethical reasons for cutting it out. People are being informative and helpful when they point that out.
I feel as long as it's pointed out constructively and sensitively to someone, it's generally a good thing.
I know once upon a time, I was someone who thought I needed to cut out carbs in order to lose weight. Now, I freaking love my carbs (and medication I am on seems to make me crave them too, I notice it more when I am on them anyway) so cutting them right down would be an absolute recipe for disaster and non sustainable long term for me.
If I had posted on here asking for advice on how I should cut out carbs in order to lose weight, although I might have initially been miffed that people were questioning my choice (because I had read and so 'knew' carbs were bad), I would soon have realised that people telling me I could lose weight still eating them but just IIFYM were right and actually were saving me from something I didn't even need to do.0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »At the risk of violating Community Guideline 11, I hereby claim OP has violated Community Guidelines 1 & 2.
SO SAYETH BURT AND SO MOTE SHALL IT BE.
BURT!!! Challenge! Peeps in the microwave. Upload to YouTube. Bonus if wearing something ridiculous while filming.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Right - if it works for them, and they're not on here fear mongering and spreading their broscience all over the place, then it is not an issue.
However, I completely agree with Emily that it is not necessary, and I don't really see why pointing out to someone that what they're doing isn't necessary is a bad thing. The poster may not realize that it's not necessary, they could've gotten some bad information from somewhere and are using it as gospel, or there could be lurkers in the thread who will think that it is necessary to cut out that food group for success.
The thing is that many people who completely cut a food group from their diet don't realize that it will likely not be sustainable unless they have a medical issue requiring it or if they have serious ethical reasons for cutting it out. People are being informative and helpful when they point that out.
I'm sure that makes them feel better about their 3 pages of arguing, but really, they're not. If someone has to screw up, they have to screw up on their own. What makes a complete stranger better qualified to know what other mental battles they're having with their WOE? Or what physical things they feel based on how and when they eat - some people drag all day without carbs first thing, some drag all day if they have them before dinner, some feel sick if they eat anything before noon. If that "helpful" advice of telling someone they're being ridiculous, or replying "lol no" when they ask how to cut back on something just makes them give up instead, are they still helpful? If it makes them completely give up whatever they were doing and start a whole new WOE from scratch, unprepared and unconvinced, and they fail again, is that informative?
Because the people giving the information have been there before? Because the most successful people on this site have for the most part found their success with learning portion control and moderation, and have realized that cutting out foods that you love forever is not sustainable if you're only doing it because you feel like it?
Arguments get started because people come into threads just to white knight and validate the OP's statements and do it by spreading even more misinformation in the process. Not to mention that this is a public forum, and real conversations do not always mean that people will agree with what was stated in the OP. If people want self validation, then they are free to go and get it from the diet-specific groups that they are always corraled into.
Also, none of my posts apply to you because you have a medical reason for the way you eat.0 -
Oh man this thread delivers0
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Ahh forget it..
I don't know why I decided to come into the forums today.
It really is pointless. I don't know why I waste my time.
it is a slow work day ...
Lol. It is a no work day. (for me) . so everbody keep me laughing!!
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Right - if it works for them, and they're not on here fear mongering and spreading their broscience all over the place, then it is not an issue.
However, I completely agree with Emily that it is not necessary, and I don't really see why pointing out to someone that what they're doing isn't necessary is a bad thing. The poster may not realize that it's not necessary, they could've gotten some bad information from somewhere and are using it as gospel, or there could be lurkers in the thread who will think that it is necessary to cut out that food group for success.
The thing is that many people who completely cut a food group from their diet don't realize that it will likely not be sustainable unless they have a medical issue requiring it or if they have serious ethical reasons for cutting it out. People are being informative and helpful when they point that out.
...But people stating that low carb/IF/vegan/eating only cookies is what works for them are not saying it is necessary to lose weight? It may not be sustainable for you but there are several people it IS sustainable for. I do understand calorie deficit. One method isn't necessary...calorie deficit is.
I also never said all OP's have to be validated. The point, if you actually read what I said, is people CANNOT just make simple statements such as "I'm eating low carb and its working for me" without being attacked. Its not saying its necessary/the only way/the healthier way. Its stating what is working for THEM.
Your point isn't valid, because that scenario doesn't happen.
They either complain about it, or say that it's the only way, or ask if they MUST do it to lose weight or WORSE... believe that they can do xyz without counting calories.
Anyone who eats a certain way and says they do so out of preference... be it low carb, no sugar, vegan, vegetarian... whatever... as long as they don't go around evangelizing, they don't get any flak on the forums. I don't understand why this is so hard to see.
I moderate my carbs. I barely eat sugar. I've never made a secret of either of those things. I've always stated that those are my personal preferences. I've never, ever had any push back on the forums.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Right - if it works for them, and they're not on here fear mongering and spreading their broscience all over the place, then it is not an issue.
However, I completely agree with Emily that it is not necessary, and I don't really see why pointing out to someone that what they're doing isn't necessary is a bad thing. The poster may not realize that it's not necessary, they could've gotten some bad information from somewhere and are using it as gospel, or there could be lurkers in the thread who will think that it is necessary to cut out that food group for success.
The thing is that many people who completely cut a food group from their diet don't realize that it will likely not be sustainable unless they have a medical issue requiring it or if they have serious ethical reasons for cutting it out. People are being informative and helpful when they point that out.
...But people stating that low carb/IF/vegan/eating only cookies is what works for them are not saying it is necessary to lose weight? It may not be sustainable for you but there are several people it IS sustainable for. I do understand calorie deficit. One method isn't necessary...calorie deficit is.
I also never said all OP's have to be validated. The point, if you actually read what I said, is people CANNOT just make simple statements such as "I'm eating low carb and its working for me" without being attacked. Its not saying its necessary/the only way/the healthier way. Its stating what is working for THEM.
the only time I call it into question is when some says "calorie restriction does not work for me but Low Carb does ...OR CICO does not work for me but low carb does....OR low carb/keto is superior for fat loss...
and what do you really care if someone with experience in losing weight tells someone that there is a better way and they do not need to demonize/restrict foods?0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.
That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.
The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.
I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)
What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.
That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.
And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?
Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.
It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.
They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.
It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.
Ahh forget it..
I don't know why I decided to come into the forums today.
It really is pointless. I don't know why I waste my time.
it is a slow work day ...
Today is an insanely busy day at work. I wish I had a little more spare time to go back and read the last few pages![:\](https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions