Let's clear up a misconception

Bry_Fitness70

wizzybeth wrote: »

show previous quotes

EvanKeel wrote: »

Between meeting macros and fiber within even slightly restricted calories, it would be exceedingly difficult (for me) to eat significant amounts of "junk." I dislike that word both for its vagueness and connotations, but it's applicable.

I am eliminating "junk food" from my vocabulary and changing it to "fun food."

Great idea - while we're at it, let's also rename other things: "high cholesterfun", "funabetes" and "hypertensfun"!

MrCoolGrim

MelRC117 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

MelRC117 wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

emily_stew wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

wizzybeth 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.

What does it matter what type of diet a person is on as long as they meet there caloric requirerments? Everyone will have there own opinions and not everyone will agree so why continue debating. I beleive strongly that its all about the choices we make and learning from our mistakes and our triumphs..

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

MelRC117 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

MelRC117 wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

emily_stew wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

wizzybeth 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.

Then people point out that they lost weight due to the calorie deficit, and not the low carb/IF/vegan/whatever. It is important that people realize that, and the science behind it, in order to have long term success. Many people attribute their success ONLY to clean eating, low carbing, or whatever, and claim that they can eat as much clean foods as they want and not gain weight.

Again, there are tons of incredibly smart and successful IIFYMers/vegans/IFers/LCHFers on here who understand that it's all about the deficit and that personal preference is what determines adherence.

The only ones who get into the arguments are the ones who spread misinformation.

asdowe13

bw_conway wrote: »

show previous quotes

wizzybeth wrote: »

EvanKeel wrote: »

Between meeting macros and fiber within even slightly restricted calories, it would be exceedingly difficult (for me) to eat significant amounts of "junk." I dislike that word both for its vagueness and connotations, but it's applicable.

I am eliminating "junk food" from my vocabulary and changing it to "fun food."

Great idea - while we're at it, let's also rename other things: "high cholesterfun", "funabetes" and "hypertensfun"!

you sound fun

LiftAllThePizzas

JPW1990 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

MelRC117 wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

emily_stew wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

wizzybeth 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?

And if every reply was only ever read by the OP, that would probably be a good argument.

SconnieCat

mamapeach910 wrote: »

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.

Exactly this. All of this.

MzShelleRenea

I just got an email telling me that bacon and butter will help me lose weight.

It's confirmed . . . Big Brother is watching/listening.

Anyway, I fast two days a week. I like it. It works for me. However, I have no need to tell anyone that my way is the only way. It's not true. I still have chocolate daily. I still have pizza sometimes. I've fit a few happy hour beers into my macros. I completely agree with OP that it's about moderation. Shoot, people can gain a lot of weight eating Clean, Paleo, etc. You can overdo it on anything. Though, I do think someone who overdoes it on carrots would be awesome and most likely have supersonic vision by now.

Years ago, when I lost 70 lbs, I counted calories and weighed food long enough to get an idea of what a portion was, etc. I still had pizza, granola bars with chocolate chips (my favorite after run snack), beer, shots, and hamburgers. I just, as is mentioned here, moderated.

Today is a fast day for me. I'm still having some delicious chocolate tonight with my tea. Not a moment of guilt.

The only time I restrict a whole food from my life is because it makes me feel bad.

And I lost all respect for Dr. Oz when he said we need to marinate our steaks to keep them from charring because that's how we get cancer . . .

Plus, if his "miracles" worked so well, why must he introduce a new one 5 days week? I mean, come on, even Jesus didn't perform that many miracles.

HeySwoleSister

tincanonastring wrote: »

show previous quotes

CountessKitteh wrote: »

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.

....where did the 0.1 go? Do you just leave a peep butt hanging out? Maybe an eye?

I don't eat the eyes.

I'm picturing you sitting there next to a plate of peep eyes. It's beautiful.

MrCoolGrim

EWJLang wrote: »

show previous quotes

tincanonastring wrote: »

CountessKitteh wrote: »

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.

....where did the 0.1 go? Do you just leave a peep butt hanging out? Maybe an eye?

I don't eat the eyes.

I'm picturing you sitting there next to a plate of peep eyes. It's beautiful.

He hides them in his beard for later

snowflake954

tincanonastring wrote: »

show previous quotes

SilverRose89 wrote: »

I tell you what does need clearing up: What the heck are peeps?!

The key to weight loss. In the heierarchy of surefire weight loss techniques, it goes:

Peeps
Lemon Cleanses
Breatharianism
CICO

"Jeepers, creepers how I love those peepers---how I love those eyes" Just can't get the song out of my head now. Thanks.

PeachyCarol

EWJLang wrote: »

show previous quotes

tincanonastring wrote: »

CountessKitteh wrote: »

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.

....where did the 0.1 go? Do you just leave a peep butt hanging out? Maybe an eye?

I don't eat the eyes.

I'm picturing you sitting there next to a plate of peep eyes. It's beautiful.

Sounds like a performance art installation.

SyzygyX

I eat souls and bathe in the blood of my victims. I've never felt better.

Edit: And Peeps for dessert, of course.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

SyzygyX wrote: »

I eat souls and bathe in the blood of my victims. I've never felt better.

Edit: And Peeps for dessert, of course.

At least you're cleansing. You're doing it right.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

callsitlikeiseeit

i dont care what other people eat. i only care that I'M happy with what I'M eating.

that includes taco bell for lunch today.

carry on.

Bry_Fitness70

adowe wrote: »

show previous quotes

bw_conway wrote: »

wizzybeth wrote: »

EvanKeel wrote: »

Between meeting macros and fiber within even slightly restricted calories, it would be exceedingly difficult (for me) to eat significant amounts of "junk." I dislike that word both for its vagueness and connotations, but it's applicable.

I am eliminating "junk food" from my vocabulary and changing it to "fun food."

Great idea - while we're at it, let's also rename other things: "high cholesterfun", "funabetes" and "hypertensfun"!

you sound fun

Keeping the "fun" in dysfunctional is a thankless job...

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

MrM27 wrote: »

I dislike everyone in this thread.

Azexas

MrM27 wrote: »

I dislike everyone in this thread.

Alright you know what?




JK- we have the same love for gelato.

ndj1979

MrM27 wrote: »

I dislike everyone in this thread.

thanks for clarifying...

diannethegeek

MrM27 wrote: »

I dislike everyone in this thread.

Why are you trying to derail yet another thread? I thought this one was about peeps?

HeySwoleSister

MrM27 wrote: »

I dislike everyone in this thread.

FTFY

Unknown

This content has been removed.

tincanonastring

MrCoolGrim wrote: »

show previous quotes

EWJLang wrote: »

tincanonastring wrote: »

CountessKitteh wrote: »

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.

....where did the 0.1 go? Do you just leave a peep butt hanging out? Maybe an eye?

I don't eat the eyes.

I'm picturing you sitting there next to a plate of peep eyes. It's beautiful.

He hides them in his beard for later

My beard is 100% made of peep eyes. And souls.

spoonyspork

MrM27 wrote: »

I dislike everyone in this thread.

This seems like a good thread to ask this: does that dog in your avatar keep getting closer to the camera every couple weeks, or has calorie moderation finally driven me insane?

Serah87

bw_conway wrote: »

show previous quotes

adowe wrote: »

bw_conway wrote: »

wizzybeth wrote: »

EvanKeel wrote: »

Between meeting macros and fiber within even slightly restricted calories, it would be exceedingly difficult (for me) to eat significant amounts of "junk." I dislike that word both for its vagueness and connotations, but it's applicable.

I am eliminating "junk food" from my vocabulary and changing it to "fun food."

Great idea - while we're at it, let's also rename other things: "high cholesterfun", "funabetes" and "hypertensfun"!

you sound fun

Keeping the "fun" in dysfunctional is a thankless job...

So are you saying you are dysfunctional??

tincanonastring

MrM27 wrote: »

show previous quotes

diannethegeek wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

I dislike everyone in this thread.

Why are you trying to derail yet another thread? I thought this one was about peeps?

I dislike Peeps

You're a monster.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

MrM27 wrote: »

show previous quotes

diannethegeek wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

I dislike everyone in this thread.

Why are you trying to derail yet another thread? I thought this one was about peeps?

I dislike Peeps

I heard that. Peeps are gross. But I don't like unburnt marshmallows, so...

Maybe I could eat Peeps if they were set on fire first, but that might take away their cleansing properties.

3bambi3

jacksonpt wrote: »

show previous quotes

ndj1979 wrote: »

jacksonpt wrote: »

I think, for some people, there is a disconnect between

"Eat whatever you want as long as it fits in your cals/macros."

and

"Find ways to balance foods you enjoy with other foods for an overall healthy, balanced diet."




The first applies to weight loss and is, if I'm not mistaken, IIFYM by the letter of the law.

The second is a more reasonable, responsible approach generally applicable to the masses.

yes, but if you hitting your cals/macros it is going to be almost impossible to do it with 100% donuts, ice cream, etc...you would still need some chicken, vegetables, rice, whole grains, to balance it out...

False.

This is my go-to day. Certainly not everyday, but this is pretty indicative of my typical eating. Sure, it's not all donuts and ice cream, but there are no fruits, no veggies, no whole grain, etc.

sorry to interrupt the 'mallow love fest, but i've got a serious question. would this diet be considered healthy? i mean, he's hitting all his macros without and fruits or veg but people on both sides stress the importance of produce and whole grains. or is this diet lacking because perceived lack of micronutrients?

gothchiq

This is genius. I never tried burning them. Next time I go camping I will impale one on a stick and shove it directly into the campfire. Then if it still tastes bad to me I will just throw the whole pack into the fire and laugh as they burn lol XD