ALL WE SEE IS CALORIES..!

astronomicals

A strawman is also making an oversimplification of an argument and then attacking that oversimplification, like a strawman might infer that another persons' argument was simply a strawman. I still see no misquote from me or removal of anything from context for purpose of oversimplification and attack. It seems your responses are oversimplification for purposes of attack.

Did you just strawman the definition of "strawman"? What have I oversimplified? I havent quoted or rebuttled anything you've said?

astronomicals

I still see no misquote from me or removal of anything from context for purpose of oversimplification and attack.

It Doesn't Really Matter What You Eat.What Matters Is The Calories BUT Eating Healthy Stuff Is
better.because you can eat large portion With Low Calories.Whereas With
Junk Even The Small Portion Has High Calories..

I am not reading it that way. What I concentrate on is saying it doesn't matter what you eat, just the calories. You can get your calories from sugar water and nothing else at one extreme. Let me assure you, it is going to matter what you eat. If that is the wrong interpretation of what was meant in the OP, then it still would not hurt to clarify for anyone who might interpret differently and come away with some really poor understanding, all the while people backing up the statement and agreeing.

Sure looks like you chose to ignore what I've bolded in her OP.

LAW_714

If macros are king then the micros are queen. The goal might be focused on the king; but the queen is needed to get you there. The micros might be more powerful in some ways. You can vary your carbs and lipids quite a bit and just get minimums on fiber and protein which can be greatly supplemented. You cannot neglect your micro-nutrients though or your health will really suffer and the cravings will derail you. You can get lots of your micros through vitamin supplements. As with all supplements though getting natural nutrients are better. There are some problems with too much supplemental vitamin B6 for example. Strive for fresh pyhtonutrients also. Anyway, if you get your macros and micros in good proportion, you will turn off the hunger to a large extent.

Concentrating on blood sugar is important to feeling satisfied with your food intake. In many vegetables, you get plenty of carbohydrates to get enough blood sugar without having to have much if any grains at all. If you go too high on carbs, you trigger insulin and your blood sugar can bottom out, leaving you tired and reaching for high sugar foods, triggering more insulin in an endless cycle throughout the day. Just with a small intake of carbohydrate in the morning can make you be satisfied with your blood sugar for hours until you have a small snack. If you trigger much insulin though, you are not likely to feel satisfied. So don't load up on orange juice, pancakes, cereal and milk, for breakfast (or any meal).

Hunger is not entirely about how full your stomach is. There is an apparent misconception for many posters in this thread, trying to get bigger foods with less calories. That would be fiber rich food that you are wanting there by the way. As you can imagine, you can be very hungry even with a stomach just about bursting full of water. Or you can wake up in the morning with no appetite whatsoever even though you haven't eaten for hours.

So stop thinking you need to satisfy your appetite with big food. What you need is nutrient dense food (both macros and micros) with low calories. The problem you might have is that a lot of nutrition is stripped out of food the more it is processed, so it seems to you that you have to eat a lot before being satisfied. With the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food, there is not even any sure way to know what the baseline nutrition would be before processing. So you cannot properly estimate your nutritional intake. Aim to get extra nutrition or eat only fresh, raw, and organic. If that causes you to go over on calories or on cost, then supplement something.

Quoted because all of this is worth repeating.

NewDad24

Thanks. It is worth repeating that there is a lot more to weight-loss than just counting calories and filling up your stomach.

I can continue to expand my argument. It gets really inane sounding to go on this way I know. People resorting to these strawman arguments just count on everyone giving up because it begins to appear like a foolish waste of time. Please bear with me everyone. There is some good information in here to make worth skimming through all the bull. Here I go again.

First, a portion of what I have stated is removed from quote. I had made an observation that it is important to know the full text of the Wikipedia article on strawman was not quoted. Actually the quoted text came from an entirely different Wikipedia article, also taken out of context. The text of these Wikipedia articles on strawman and falacious reasoning serves to emphasize that it the process of oversimplification that is central to the strawman and quote mining is merely a method to serve that purpose. Quoting out of context for the purpose of providing a comprehensive digest of the premise of an argument, without intent on distorting meaning, has nothing to do with the strawman argument at all.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Astronomicals suggests I am worthy of the name strawman. I am certain it is the intention to imply that my arguments are supposedly based entirely on a strawman premise. That implication is both a grand oversimplification and attack at the same time, for purpose of refuting my entire argument by dismissing it out of hand.

I have no idea why certain parts of my quote are emboldened. There is no response that touches on that. Is it some ridiculous attempt at quote mining? The key concepts of my message may easily be seen to be other than what is in bold.

My quoted remark begins that, "I am not reading it that way." Meaning, I do not interpret the OP in the way astronomicals does. I say that I concentrate on the calories being all important. Meaning to say there is more to the OP but I am focused on a particular part. Also meaning to say, I am taking away this as the premise. I am not meaning to say that this is actually the premise and that everyone should just assume I am correct without reading and deciding for themselves. I am just stating my opinion on the matter. Then I go on to touch on the possibility that it might not be the intended premise, though I think it would be potentially dangerous for some people who might like to believe in a simple solution to a complex weight-loss problem.

The portion of the OP emboldened by astronomicals does not seem to be the premise of the OP to me. In the OP, the only mentioned benefit for eating healthy is that it allows you to eat some big food. That is a very poor understanding of why healthy food is better to eat. It might likely be the least important reason for eating healthy because the size of your food really does not matter much at all. Actually this part of the OP is not much even worth mentioning other than to underscore how poor an understanding is behind the OP.

Understand that there are plenty of extremely healthy calorie dense foods that are extremely small, i.e. look at a real Japanese menu. Then there are some nutrient vacuous foods that have few calories. I don't know if I could even have space in my stomach to eat over 20 pounds of celery in a day; but my daily caloric limit would not be exceeded. I would have lots of fiber, so not totally junk and not as bad as the sugar water diet. Still you get the idea. Foods come in all shapes, sizes, nutrient densities, and caloric densities. There are manner of mixes and combinations. Healthy eating will not always fill your stomach. There are lots of ways to get your stomach popping with fullness while not eating healthy.

So I see what is stated that matters is calories and I compare and contrast to something that matters very little, which is the size of the food. So in my opinion it is the statement about what matters that would most likely be the premise. But it is like trying to interpret glyphs anyway since the OP obeys almost no rules of the English language. That has been banged away on enough, but it explains why I would not even bother to quote the OP in the first place. Why quote something that is widely open to interpretation? Besides it is the OP which mostly everyone interested in this thread will read for themselves anyway.

Whew! Bring it on.

randomtai

Wow, I had the exact same thought when I read the thread title :laugh:

I think some people in this thread are hangry!

astronomicals

It Doesn't Really Matter What You Eat.What Matters Is The Calories BUT Eating Healthy Stuff Is
better.because you can eat large portion With Low Calories.Whereas With
Junk Even The Small Portion Has High Calories..

Lets do this again..

It Doesn't Really Matter What You Eat.What Matters Is The Calories

Would you agree or disagree that a caloric deficit causes weight loss?

BUT Eating Healthy Stuff Is better.because you can eat large portion With Low Calories.Whereas With
Junk Even The Small Portion Has High Calories..

Would you agree or disagree that eating more "healthy" foods lets you have larger meals while maintaining a deficit?


Nowhere in there does someone say that its all that matters or that this is all you need to know. You just keep adding facts to the fire as if they were assumed to be false. Nobody ever said that all calorie dense foods are "bad". Nobody ever said that this is a dietary protocol. Nobody is suggesting exclusions of any types of foods. I haven't disagreed with anything you've said and I agree with ~90% of it. You keep stating extremes and its kinda silly.

You said

The portion of the OP emboldened by astronomicals does not seem to be the premise of the OP to me. In the OP, the only mentioned benefit for eating healthy is that it allows you to eat some big food. That is a very poor understanding of why healthy food is better to eat. It might likely be the least important reason for eating healthy because the size of your food really does not matter much at all. Actually this part of the OP is not much even worth mentioning other than to underscore how poor an understanding is behind the OP.

Look at the pert in bold. Your words. You just agreed with what you originally disagreed with (which started this whole thing). You just think its not the most important thing, and I can agree with that. But, nobody ever said that it was all that mattered.

So there we go. You agree with my original statement that started this whole thing. You wish she would have written a dietary plan even though that was never her intent. You're worried that three sentences doesn't properly encapsulate everything you need to know about dieting, even though, it never claimed to be anything of the sort.

So, I guess we see eye to eye on most things, however, you choose to just keep dropping knowledge and acting like it somehow goes against a suggestion that was never even expressed.

I win.

astronomicals

I'm proud to say that this argument shed light on nothing and helped no one. It was still fun. Probably sint over either. He'll deny agreeing with me or just flat out ignore everything I've said. Or maybe, if I'm lucky, the fact that I agree with most of his additions will be enough. I doubt it.

NewDad24

I have no idea how someone might conclude I have agreed with something that I have disagreed with. My quite extensive argument is reduced and is there is an attempt to supplant my argument with some bizarre conclusions. That is not my argument at all. I encourage anyone to read what I had actually written and not what is being stated by astronomicals.

One very key element to my argument, is that it does not really matter whose interpretation actually reflects the true intent of the OP. The most important thing, is that a first-time user on the message board, might read it and come away with a very poor understanding.