"Low carb hate" rant....
Replies
-
-
Hi
Ive just joined this group by recommendation after I got a lot of snidy comments for posting about low carb.
Its only my 2nd day of eating low carb but already I can't believe how satisfied I'm feeling
Haters gonna hate!0 -
It is always stunning how vehemently folks defend refined carbs and sugars! You'd think they were required health foods!0
-
Dragonwolf wrote: »5marshallsstrong wrote: »Things will never change until we outlive all of them.
lol. Just kidding....really there are some people who refuse to believe that their way doesn't work for everybody. Some people do amazing on CICO but it doesnt satisfy me and took over a year to lose 20 pounds following it religiously and exercising daily. Mind you, I had 70 to lose and should have lost more in a year. Apparently (according to the cico gurus) I was not logging everything i was "cramming into my mouth"....or lying about exercise..... the problem was something i was doing wrong because the formula was "golden". I left MFP for 2 years after that episode. People are so hateful.
So now I am back with a new name and pretty much keeping to myself and this board. So glad i found you guys. I cant take the hate of the main boards or the immaturity of the "would you kiss the poster above" crap i see in my feed all of the time...
That's what gets me the most. It'd be one thing if they simply disagreed, but there are some who are convinced that we're secretly stuffing our faces or something. I actually feel kind of bad for these kinds of people, their lives must suck pretty hard in the weight and nutrition department in order to be so fearful and hateful toward those of us who only found success when we changed what we ate and not just how much.
I had a run in with a particularly vitriolic person about a week ago -http://dicktalens.com/the-myth-of-willpower-and-eat-less-move-more/
Yeah, I have no interest in arguing with people about how it's the TYPE of calories that matter, not the quantity. Second Law of Thermodynamics be damned - it doesn't apply to the human body, as the body is not a closed system. Also, the TYPE of calories you ingest either satisfies you, or creates a vicious cycle of hunger --> feed --> still hungry --> eat --> need something to tide me over/perk me up --> eat more, and on and on it goes.
thanks for the link. I intend to read it later, just scanned it. You don't NEED willpower if you're eating things that satisfy you rather than things which drive your insulin up and make you want to eat more. If a person is fat, it's more likely that the problem is a malfunction in the way his body processes what he is eating. In other words, IT'S NOT HIS FAULT. It's not a character flaw. It's not because he's a bad accountant. You have control over what you put in your mouth (keeping in mind the postulate that willpower is a finite resource - with which I agree), but you do NOT have control over HOW YOUR BODY PROCESSES WHAT YOU PUT IN YOUR MOUTH. In short, it's not your fault!
0 -
Thought this might be the place to post this!0 -
-
AngInCanada wrote: »I gained 10 lbs in just over a month eating CICO. I weighed every single thing I ate. Was eating 1500 calories at macros of 40/30/30 and I was 230 at the time so those calories were not too high. I was exhausted, kept getting rashes on my hands and feet, canker sores. I've lost 10 lbs in 3 weeksnwith lchf, have more energy, no rash or canker sores in 3 weeks. Those CICO promoters who feast on all of the newcomers can bite my butt.
The issue here isn't that CICO is "wrong." It's that people are using the term incorrectly (on both sides of the argument). All CICO is, is a mathematical equation. When CI is larger than CO, you gain weight. When CI is smaller than CO, you lose weight. When CI is equal to CO, you maintain. That doesn't change, no matter what you eat, how often you eat, if you track your intake, or what other health conditions you have.
Health conditions, especially IR, but a host of others as well, affect the CO. To some extent, the content of the calories consumed affect the CI. This is why you see things like someone with IR who can't lose at 1500 carb heavy calories, but can lose at 1700 low carb.
If you want to argue and be taken seriously in the main forums, you can't say "CICO is wrong" or "CICO doesn't work," because those are both incorrect statements. The correct statement is that your CO has to be calculated to include medical conditions that aren't an issue for other people, and as a result, the standard CICO formulas are inaccurate. When you see the other side misusing CICO, and saying they just "eat CICO" (which is an asinine statement, every living thing on earth eats CICO), correct them and tell them that you cannot define a WOE by a mathematical formula, and what they really mean is they eat whatever they want, as long as they have a deficit, because they have no medical concerns related to the CO.
This!0 -
I agree, it does matter what sort of calories you eat, if you live in a cold country you need more fats, to help insulate the body, so people who have lived there for generations have high fat diets, and high carb , because working outdoors needs to be sustained. However in the last 50 years we all have some huge changes in our work load, so we need less energy than we used to need. Carbs if they are not used are stored as fat, and if we don't eat carbs then our body will burn up the stored energy, it doesn't matter what the calorie counters say, that is just a plain fact. However those of us on low carb know that protein is not one of the things we can store so we eat more of that to keep our muscle mass working. Why some just can't grasp the idea amazes me. It is simple . I know my parents, could eat a carb mountain and never gained weight, because they worked very hard. I can't eat carbs at all, or I end up looking like a little elephant.lauraesh0384 wrote: »I've seen some people say that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you're within your calories. Um, what? Yes it most certainly does matter! I saw one person tell another that cutting back on carbs doesn't decrease body fat % and that a caloric deficit will do that. Yes, a caloric deficit will, but macros matter, too. Apparently some people don't understand that when you aren't eating carbs or very low carb your body starts burning fat sooner. Sometimes you just have to pick your battles. Calories in/calories out might work for some, but low carb works best for those of us that are carb sensitive.
Sorry for the double post. It cut off the rest of my post for some reason.
0
This discussion has been closed.