Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.0 -
Isn't that the point, that "X is not necessary" is not a good reason to claim it is bad for us to eat, as with a modern diet of abundance very little is necessary and we will end up filling out our diets with food that is necessary only in that we need to eat something to prevent us from wasting away?
Protein beyond the RDA isn't necessary, carbs aren't necessary (assuming you get adequate micros and feel fine without them, which I think most would not--for most vegetables are necessary for adequate nutrition), and fat beyond a relatively small amount (including the essentially fatty acids) is not necessary, and of course animal products are not necessary (at least if you supplement B-12).
We all eat lots of foods that aren't necessary, that doesn't make them bad for us.13 -
RobynTheresa wrote: »I've been watching the CICO discussions on this forum with interest. CICO is definitely not a myth, however for optimal health it is not the only consideration for weight loss.
I get what you are saying, but the debate over CICO isn't about optimal health but has always been about weight loss. Losing weight and health and the same but different. In your above context though, CICO is the only consideration for weight loss. Optimal health is about being a healthy weight and maintaining systemic functions.
Is "Optimal health" the target for most people? Is it not okay to be satisfied with "reasonable health"? Especially considering no one would really be able to define optimal in this case? Especially since weight loss has such a huge benefit to health to start with?8 -
There seems to be a lot of experts on MFP, ready to tell others what they should be doing, or what they are doing wrong. If that is what you want, great, go for it, and congratulations on being where you want to be.
Some of us would be content with "just" a normal weight. There is nothing wrong with that.
For many of us, that is an enormous step in the right direction, with a lot of obvious improvements.
Such as, being able to walk up stairs without becoming winded. Vast improvement in movement because weight is off. No longer snoring. Being able to cross our legs, tie our shoes. Being able to keep up with our kids, or grandkids. Etc...............
15 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
I am not sure your analogy holds. My body cannot synthesize adequate vitamin D, even in the summer when I spend a lot of time outside. Given some of the more recent studies that suggest that the current recommended intake of vitamin D is way too low, and that perhaps three-quarters of the population of the US is deficient, I don't think that you can rely on the body to produce sufficient, which would be much less then optimal, quantities of vitamin D.
The same can be said of the conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to the essential FAs docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. Clearly helpful from an evolutionary perspective for the people that did not have access to DHA and EPA, but the synthesis capability is only enough to keep you alive, not to let you thrive. The more interesting health benefits of DHA and EPA show up when higher quantities of it are consumed directly.
You may thrive on low carb, but I do not. After quite a few experiments with low carb and keto myself, I thrive on moderate to high carb intake.1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
Well there are more optimal levels of protein, especially during weight loss. But it would be interesting to know at what point protein starts to interfere with IR.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it
your special foods.
It amazes me too! A third of a cup of ice cream would would be a tiny sad taste and I'd end up getting more, so a pointless exercise too..
A third of a cup of ice cream is the perfect amount to add to an adult root beer float
8 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it your special foods.
It amazes me too! A third of a cup of ice cream would would be a tiny sad taste and I'd end up getting more, so a pointless exercise too..
A third of a cup of ice cream is the perfect amount to add to an adult root beer float
I went to a party recently (which is kind of rare since I do not enjoy most of them) and most people had brought beer or liquor. There was a guy there who brought the makings for root beer floats. Not spiked or anything, just regular root beer and vanilla ice cream. He was the most popular guy in the room.11 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
great, so we have established that carbs, protein, and fats are not necessary for health.
lots of things are not necessary, does not make them bad.7 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »RobynTheresa wrote: »I've been watching the CICO discussions on this forum with interest. CICO is definitely not a myth, however for optimal health it is not the only consideration for weight loss.
I get what you are saying, but the debate over CICO isn't about optimal health but has always been about weight loss. Losing weight and health and the same but different. In your above context though, CICO is the only consideration for weight loss. Optimal health is about being a healthy weight and maintaining systemic functions.
Is "Optimal health" the target for most people? Is it not okay to be satisfied with "reasonable health"? Especially considering no one would really be able to define optimal in this case? Especially since weight loss has such a huge benefit to health to start with?
That's actually Yoni Freedhoff's basic premise, and I think it makes sense: http://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11649210/biggest-loser-weight-loss
".... Looking to my experiences working with thousands of patients over the course of the past dozen years, it's clear that liking the life you're living while you're losing weight is the key to keeping it off.
Liking the life you're living while you're losing looks different to each individual. There is no one "best" diet. While different diet gurus and their acolytes will try to tell you that their diet is the best and only diet, there is definitely no clear winner in the medical literature.
Moreover, even if there were a clear winner on paper, if the key to your success is actually liking the life and diet you're living with while you're losing, one person's best diet, if not enjoyed, would be another person's worst.... If your efforts can be summarized as cyclical, episodic, concentrated bouts of suffering, during which your aim isn't the healthiest life that you can enjoy but rather the healthiest life that you can tolerate, well, go figure you're not likely to keep it off.
If you want to succeed with long-term weight loss, it's crucial that you embrace both reality and imperfection.
Remember, too, that your best efforts will vary. Your best when facing a challenging time in life will be different from your best when everything is hunky-dory, just as your best on your birthday, or on a vacation, or at a holiday meal will require indulgence.
The truth is there will come a point where you can't happily live any better — where you can't happily eat less and you can't happily exercise more — and your weight, living with that life, is your best weight. In every other area of our lives we readily accept our best efforts as great, and we need to do that with weight and healthful living too."20 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »
If you want to debate the differences between refined sugary *kitten* as a source of carbohydrate or say a capsicum; the key point is glycemic index, and how the glucose that is generated enters and ultimately exits your system.
The whole "Well everything gets broken down into glucose" mentality shows a limited understanding of why fibrous carbohydrates are far better for fuel throughout the day; runners who subsist on glucose shots and gels versus those eating bananas, apples and fruits - you can generally tell the difference because the professionals and leaders of the pack aren't the ones chugging down *kitten* to spike their glucose temporarily.
Also, you could easily exist without any form of sugar because your body undertakes gluconeogenesis to convert excess protein and excess fatty acids into a form of glucose for your blood stream.
Also, stop saying "sugar" and start saying "refined sugar" - sugar itself, (ga)lactose, fructose, dextrose - are all perfectly fine and all perfectly healthy.
The problem with this dichotomy is that sucrose is also found in high concentrations in many fruits and vegetables. You could argue that the fiber found in fruits and vegetables blunts the GL, thus making the sucrose in fruits and vegetables "not bad" as compared to refined sugar, but at least in short-term, this is not supported by science.
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/10/2387.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705335/
You are then left with the argument that refined sugar has long-term effects on "health", which is an abstract argument, and even more difficult to demonstrate causality, or form a counter-argument to oppose. If you remove the correlations with obesity, there is scant evidence that refined sugar can be linked to any disorder or disease.
Also, not sure that it is a good position for you to revert to the "dietary carbs are not required" argument, since this ultimately shows that glucose is so important that your body will go through highly inefficient metabolic pathways to manufacture it if necessary, even in the presence of extreme, prolonged energy deficit.
Or you could say that eating carbs is overkill ince we already make all the glucose we need. Sort of like taking vitamin D when you live in the tropics and work outdoors.
I like carbs, I don't think they are necessary for good health, but I like them and enjoy eating them Sadly, my body doesn't do well with many though.
Consuming 50 + % of your diet in fats is not necessary for health either....
Meh. It's that or protein, and excess protein is not helpful, at all, for insulin resistance.
great, so we have established that carbs, protein, and fats are not necessary for health.
lots of things are not necessary, does not make them bad.
Well fats and protein is essential for health. They are essential. Carbs are more individualistic and make things more optimal for many, as you are well aware.
2 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it your special foods.
It amazes me too! A third of a cup of ice cream would would be a tiny sad taste and I'd end up getting more, so a pointless exercise too..
A third of a cup of ice cream is the perfect amount to add to an adult root beer float
I went to a party recently (which is kind of rare since I do not enjoy most of them) and most people had brought beer or liquor. There was a guy there who brought the makings for root beer floats. Not spiked or anything, just regular root beer and vanilla ice cream. He was the most popular guy in the room.
I'm not a big drinker but I love alcoholic root beers They're great by themselves or as a root beer float. My favorite brands are
http://smalltownbrewery.com/our-beers/nyfrb/
https://www.aldi.us/en/grocery-home/beer/premium-beers/premium-detail/ps/p/big-brother-hard-root-beer-botm-jan-2017/2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »RobynTheresa wrote: »I've been watching the CICO discussions on this forum with interest. CICO is definitely not a myth, however for optimal health it is not the only consideration for weight loss.
I get what you are saying, but the debate over CICO isn't about optimal health but has always been about weight loss. Losing weight and health and the same but different. In your above context though, CICO is the only consideration for weight loss. Optimal health is about being a healthy weight and maintaining systemic functions.
Is "Optimal health" the target for most people? Is it not okay to be satisfied with "reasonable health"? Especially considering no one would really be able to define optimal in this case? Especially since weight loss has such a huge benefit to health to start with?
That's actually Yoni Freedhoff's basic premise, and I think it makes sense: http://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11649210/biggest-loser-weight-loss
".... Looking to my experiences working with thousands of patients over the course of the past dozen years, it's clear that liking the life you're living while you're losing weight is the key to keeping it off.
Liking the life you're living while you're losing looks different to each individual. There is no one "best" diet. While different diet gurus and their acolytes will try to tell you that their diet is the best and only diet, there is definitely no clear winner in the medical literature.
Moreover, even if there were a clear winner on paper, if the key to your success is actually liking the life and diet you're living with while you're losing, one person's best diet, if not enjoyed, would be another person's worst.... If your efforts can be summarized as cyclical, episodic, concentrated bouts of suffering, during which your aim isn't the healthiest life that you can enjoy but rather the healthiest life that you can tolerate, well, go figure you're not likely to keep it off.
If you want to succeed with long-term weight loss, it's crucial that you embrace both reality and imperfection.
Remember, too, that your best efforts will vary. Your best when facing a challenging time in life will be different from your best when everything is hunky-dory, just as your best on your birthday, or on a vacation, or at a holiday meal will require indulgence.
The truth is there will come a point where you can't happily live any better — where you can't happily eat less and you can't happily exercise more — and your weight, living with that life, is your best weight. In every other area of our lives we readily accept our best efforts as great, and we need to do that with weight and healthful living too."
I can pretty much agree with this. And I would add that it's okay to have different priorities. Your time on earth is a zero sum game. Whatever time you spend doing one thing is time you take away from something else. To me the goal is to balance the most important priorities (of which overall wellness would be one, at least for me) without detracting too much from the others. I want to be as healthy as I can be while still pursuing overall mental health, and part of that is not sweating the small stuff too much.4 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it your special foods.
It amazes me too! A third of a cup of ice cream would would be a tiny sad taste and I'd end up getting more, so a pointless exercise too..
A third of a cup of ice cream is the perfect amount to add to an adult root beer float
I went to a party recently (which is kind of rare since I do not enjoy most of them) and most people had brought beer or liquor. There was a guy there who brought the makings for root beer floats. Not spiked or anything, just regular root beer and vanilla ice cream. He was the most popular guy in the room.
I'm not a big drinker but I love alcoholic root beers They're great by themselves or as a root beer float. My favorite brands are
http://smalltownbrewery.com/our-beers/nyfrb/
https://www.aldi.us/en/grocery-home/beer/premium-beers/premium-detail/ps/p/big-brother-hard-root-beer-botm-jan-2017/
Sprecher makes a pretty phenomenal root beer and a hard version as well. I'm lucky enough to be within driving distance of both breweries and head on over whenever they have a limited market release.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »RobynTheresa wrote: »I've been watching the CICO discussions on this forum with interest. CICO is definitely not a myth, however for optimal health it is not the only consideration for weight loss.
I get what you are saying, but the debate over CICO isn't about optimal health but has always been about weight loss. Losing weight and health and the same but different. In your above context though, CICO is the only consideration for weight loss. Optimal health is about being a healthy weight and maintaining systemic functions.
Is "Optimal health" the target for most people? Is it not okay to be satisfied with "reasonable health"? Especially considering no one would really be able to define optimal in this case? Especially since weight loss has such a huge benefit to health to start with?
That's actually Yoni Freedhoff's basic premise, and I think it makes sense: http://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11649210/biggest-loser-weight-loss
".... Looking to my experiences working with thousands of patients over the course of the past dozen years, it's clear that liking the life you're living while you're losing weight is the key to keeping it off.
Liking the life you're living while you're losing looks different to each individual. There is no one "best" diet. While different diet gurus and their acolytes will try to tell you that their diet is the best and only diet, there is definitely no clear winner in the medical literature.
Moreover, even if there were a clear winner on paper, if the key to your success is actually liking the life and diet you're living with while you're losing, one person's best diet, if not enjoyed, would be another person's worst.... If your efforts can be summarized as cyclical, episodic, concentrated bouts of suffering, during which your aim isn't the healthiest life that you can enjoy but rather the healthiest life that you can tolerate, well, go figure you're not likely to keep it off.
If you want to succeed with long-term weight loss, it's crucial that you embrace both reality and imperfection.
Remember, too, that your best efforts will vary. Your best when facing a challenging time in life will be different from your best when everything is hunky-dory, just as your best on your birthday, or on a vacation, or at a holiday meal will require indulgence.
The truth is there will come a point where you can't happily live any better — where you can't happily eat less and you can't happily exercise more — and your weight, living with that life, is your best weight. In every other area of our lives we readily accept our best efforts as great, and we need to do that with weight and healthful living too."
This is amazing. It perfectly sums up how I've come to feel about this whole thing. I really should read more from him.7 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »The main ingredient in ice cream is sugar, by a pure calorie basis - and generally you've got sugar ontop of sugar in icecream due to flavourings too, but nice try.
Depends on the ice cream, but usually it's about half sugar, half fat (and the fat is all dairy fat). To me it's pretty much interchangeable with cheese -- I like both, eat both because I think they are tasty and not because I pretend they are good for me, and I find that both tend to increase my satisfaction with my diet and so help me eat an overall nutrient dense, calorie appropriate diet. Yeah, overall for the same calories the ice cream has some sugar and the cheese more sat fat, but I don't agree with your assumption that fat = good, sugar = bad, in all cases -- IMO, my sat fat and sugar levels are fine on a total amount so no harm in including either the cheese or ice cream, but I don't have a need for what is contributed by either and my diet in terms of overall nutrients is not better because of either (better because tastier and more satisfying, sure).
I'd put drinking a glass of good wine or beer in that category too, although I personally don't drink. (And I'd say that's not the same thing as "using" booze or "using" food or whatever you are trying to imply with that.)
Anyway, to support the half fat/half sugar claim, although specific ice creams vary, of course: I have a basic chocolate ice cream recipe in my recipe box, and it comes in as exactly half and half -- 72 calories from sugar, 72 from fat. Some of the sugar is from dairy, though.
I pulled the newest Jeni flavor's nutrition label (there's a Jeni's on my street and I'm a fan), and it has the new nutrition label. It's Bangkok Peanut flavor. I am adjusting to 1/3 a cup, as to me 200 calories of ice cream occasionally seems normal. .5 cup (the old serving) would be about 300 calories, so a high cal ice cream, yes.
For the .33 cup, it's 200 calories of which 74 calories are from sugar, 56 of those from added sugar, and 108 calories from fat. Also 18 calories from of protein. So for that one more of the calories are from fat, although presumably some of the fat is from peanut, not dairy fat.
This amazes me no end. I really couldn't eat just one third c. of ice cream, specially anything called Peanut! Kudos on your amazing capacities at restricting (what I would call it your special foods.
It amazes me too! A third of a cup of ice cream would would be a tiny sad taste and I'd end up getting more, so a pointless exercise too..
A third of a cup of ice cream is the perfect amount to add to an adult root beer float
I went to a party recently (which is kind of rare since I do not enjoy most of them) and most people had brought beer or liquor. There was a guy there who brought the makings for root beer floats. Not spiked or anything, just regular root beer and vanilla ice cream. He was the most popular guy in the room.
I'm not a big drinker but I love alcoholic root beers They're great by themselves or as a root beer float. My favorite brands are
http://smalltownbrewery.com/our-beers/nyfrb/
https://www.aldi.us/en/grocery-home/beer/premium-beers/premium-detail/ps/p/big-brother-hard-root-beer-botm-jan-2017/
Sprecher makes a pretty phenomenal root beer and a hard version as well. I'm lucky enough to be within driving distance of both breweries and head on over whenever they have a limited market release.
Never tried this before but just looked it up and a local store carries it so I'll be on the lookout for it-thanks!0 -
What I find interesting is that, why do humans tend to settle on diets that are generally higher in carbs? Carbs in traditional diets in most places often are the largest contributor to energy. There are exceptions in extreme environments like the inuits, which still manage to eat an average of 15-20% carbs or much higher than most keto dieters, but the general trend appears to be leaning towards carbs almost everywhere.
Even modern diets everywhere appear to gravitate towards carbs as the highest contributor to energy. Interestingly, this trend scales up and down with average energy intake.World: 2780 kcal/person/day (Carbohydrates: 63%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%)
Developed countries: 3420 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 53%, Proteins: 12%, Fats: 34%
Developing World: 2630 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 67%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 23%
Sub-Saharan Africa: 2240 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 72%, Proteins: 10%, Fats: 19%
Central Africa: 1820 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 75%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%
Outside of personal preference, consuming an adequate amount of carbs appears to be the natural tendency of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future carbs do prove to beneficial outside of the nutrients attached to them like fat was, but even if this doesn't happen I find dubbing such a diet as inferior to be an odd claim.
5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »What I find interesting is that, why do humans tend to settle on diets that are generally higher in carbs? Carbs in traditional diets in most places often are the largest contributor to energy. There are exceptions in extreme environments like the inuits, which still manage to eat an average of 15-20% carbs or much higher than most keto dieters, but the general trend appears to be leaning towards carbs almost everywhere.
Even modern diets everywhere appear to gravitate towards carbs as the highest contributor to energy. Interestingly, this trend scales up and down with average energy intake.World: 2780 kcal/person/day (Carbohydrates: 63%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%)
Developed countries: 3420 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 53%, Proteins: 12%, Fats: 34%
Developing World: 2630 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 67%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 23%
Sub-Saharan Africa: 2240 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 72%, Proteins: 10%, Fats: 19%
Central Africa: 1820 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 75%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%
Outside of personal preference, consuming an adequate amount of carbs appears to be the natural tendency of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future carbs do prove to beneficial outside of the nutrients attached to them like fat was, but even if this doesn't happen I find dubbing such a diet as inferior to be an odd claim.
I would think it's also more accessible than meats.2 -
Personally I feel best on moderate protein, moderate fat, higher carb. I have tried to go lower carb for months at a time and I just never really adjust. I see a significant drop in energy that just doesn't seem to improve. In addition I find myself feeling unsatisfied and deprived. Low carb advocates tell me that if I would stick with it eventually it would get better, but since I don't buy the idea that carbs are innately bad I just do what feels best for me.
I also struggle with chronic illness that leaves me feeling fatigued and in pain a lot of the time. So anything that gives me extra energy is a plus, and anything that makes my life more enjoyable even more so. I don't seem to have the energy crashes that people are always warning me about, so I just do me. Of course all of that is strictly anecdotal and there's a good chance I'm just an odd ball.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »What I find interesting is that, why do humans tend to settle on diets that are generally higher in carbs? Carbs in traditional diets in most places often are the largest contributor to energy. There are exceptions in extreme environments like the inuits, which still manage to eat an average of 15-20% carbs or much higher than most keto dieters, but the general trend appears to be leaning towards carbs almost everywhere.
Even modern diets everywhere appear to gravitate towards carbs as the highest contributor to energy. Interestingly, this trend scales up and down with average energy intake.World: 2780 kcal/person/day (Carbohydrates: 63%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%)
Developed countries: 3420 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 53%, Proteins: 12%, Fats: 34%
Developing World: 2630 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 67%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 23%
Sub-Saharan Africa: 2240 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 72%, Proteins: 10%, Fats: 19%
Central Africa: 1820 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 75%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%
Outside of personal preference, consuming an adequate amount of carbs appears to be the natural tendency of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future carbs do prove to beneficial outside of the nutrients attached to them like fat was, but even if this doesn't happen I find dubbing such a diet as inferior to be an odd claim.
I suspect that most places carbs are a staple because they are an inexpensive source of calories -- rice, potatoes, wheat, other grains, sweet potatoes or yams some places.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »What I find interesting is that, why do humans tend to settle on diets that are generally higher in carbs? Carbs in traditional diets in most places often are the largest contributor to energy. There are exceptions in extreme environments like the inuits, which still manage to eat an average of 15-20% carbs or much higher than most keto dieters, but the general trend appears to be leaning towards carbs almost everywhere.
Even modern diets everywhere appear to gravitate towards carbs as the highest contributor to energy. Interestingly, this trend scales up and down with average energy intake.World: 2780 kcal/person/day (Carbohydrates: 63%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%)
Developed countries: 3420 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 53%, Proteins: 12%, Fats: 34%
Developing World: 2630 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 67%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 23%
Sub-Saharan Africa: 2240 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 72%, Proteins: 10%, Fats: 19%
Central Africa: 1820 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 75%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%
Outside of personal preference, consuming an adequate amount of carbs appears to be the natural tendency of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future carbs do prove to beneficial outside of the nutrients attached to them like fat was, but even if this doesn't happen I find dubbing such a diet as inferior to be an odd claim.
I would think it's also more accessible than meats.
Exactly! So we essentially evolved to thrive on such a distribution, but with mechanisms in place to survive on something different if environment so dictates.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »What I find interesting is that, why do humans tend to settle on diets that are generally higher in carbs? Carbs in traditional diets in most places often are the largest contributor to energy. There are exceptions in extreme environments like the inuits, which still manage to eat an average of 15-20% carbs or much higher than most keto dieters, but the general trend appears to be leaning towards carbs almost everywhere.
Even modern diets everywhere appear to gravitate towards carbs as the highest contributor to energy. Interestingly, this trend scales up and down with average energy intake.World: 2780 kcal/person/day (Carbohydrates: 63%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%)
Developed countries: 3420 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 53%, Proteins: 12%, Fats: 34%
Developing World: 2630 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 67%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 23%
Sub-Saharan Africa: 2240 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 72%, Proteins: 10%, Fats: 19%
Central Africa: 1820 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 75%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%
Outside of personal preference, consuming an adequate amount of carbs appears to be the natural tendency of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future carbs do prove to beneficial outside of the nutrients attached to them like fat was, but even if this doesn't happen I find dubbing such a diet as inferior to be an odd claim.
I suspect that most places carbs are a staple because they are an inexpensive source of calories -- rice, potatoes, wheat, other grains, sweet potatoes or yams some places.
I'd say that's probably pretty accurate...
Even as a kid, we were pretty poor...quality carbohydrates were my mom's go to...stuff that remains staples for me today...lots of oats (even for dinner many nights), beans, lentils, potato, potato, potato and lots of veg (eeew....at least at the time) We always had meat on Sunday; usually a pot roast...as for other days of the week, it just depended on where we were in my dad's payroll cycle. As I recall, it was mainly ground beef dishes when we had meat during the week.
For much of my childhood, my dad worked late and wouldn't get home until we were all in bed...my mom always left him a cooked baked potato for dinner...I swear that guy had a baked potato for dinner, five nights per week for at least 3-4 years...5 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »RobynTheresa wrote: »I've been watching the CICO discussions on this forum with interest. CICO is definitely not a myth, however for optimal health it is not the only consideration for weight loss.
I get what you are saying, but the debate over CICO isn't about optimal health but has always been about weight loss. Losing weight and health and the same but different. In your above context though, CICO is the only consideration for weight loss. Optimal health is about being a healthy weight and maintaining systemic functions.
Is "Optimal health" the target for most people? Is it not okay to be satisfied with "reasonable health"? Especially considering no one would really be able to define optimal in this case? Especially since weight loss has such a huge benefit to health to start with?
Of course we want optimal health, and of course watching caloric intake along with strength and conditioning (and to me, mental and spiritual conditioning) bring us systemically aligned for it. Again, that is NEVER what the CICO debate is about. It is about people who SWEAR there are some magical workings in the body that somehow keep CICO from working for them.
But for weight CICO is NOT a myth.
There is nothing else needed to loss weight.
In all but a few instances it works.
Even if you are doing strength and conditioning, if you do not count calories to maintain or lose, you will gain. It is that simple. CICO is central.
And people still want to argue it.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »What I find interesting is that, why do humans tend to settle on diets that are generally higher in carbs? Carbs in traditional diets in most places often are the largest contributor to energy. There are exceptions in extreme environments like the inuits, which still manage to eat an average of 15-20% carbs or much higher than most keto dieters, but the general trend appears to be leaning towards carbs almost everywhere.
Even modern diets everywhere appear to gravitate towards carbs as the highest contributor to energy. Interestingly, this trend scales up and down with average energy intake.World: 2780 kcal/person/day (Carbohydrates: 63%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%)
Developed countries: 3420 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 53%, Proteins: 12%, Fats: 34%
Developing World: 2630 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 67%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 23%
Sub-Saharan Africa: 2240 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 72%, Proteins: 10%, Fats: 19%
Central Africa: 1820 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 75%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%
Outside of personal preference, consuming an adequate amount of carbs appears to be the natural tendency of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future carbs do prove to beneficial outside of the nutrients attached to them like fat was, but even if this doesn't happen I find dubbing such a diet as inferior to be an odd claim.
I suspect that most places carbs are a staple because they are an inexpensive source of calories -- rice, potatoes, wheat, other grains, sweet potatoes or yams some places.
I'd say that's probably pretty accurate...
Even as a kid, we were pretty poor...quality carbohydrates were my mom's go to...stuff that remains staples for me today...lots of oats (even for dinner many nights), beans, lentils, potato, potato, potato and lots of veg (eeew....at least at the time) We always had meat on Sunday; usually a pot roast...as for other days of the week, it just depended on where we were in my dad's payroll cycle. As I recall, it was mainly ground beef dishes when we had meat during the week.
For much of my childhood, my dad worked late and wouldn't get home until we were all in bed...my mom always left him a cooked baked potato for dinner...I swear that guy had a baked potato for dinner, five nights per week for at least 3-4 years...
We were lucky in that my dad was a meat cutter so we usually had meat, albeit slightly expired. But I remember my entire childhood being meat, starch, vegetable. The main vegetables we had were the ones my parents grew and it was a lot of corn and green beans. We ate so many slightly expired lunch meat sandwiches with no cheese that I didn't eat sandwiches for most of my young adult life. My mom filled in the gaps with starches. Rice, noodles (hamburger helper was a staple), beans, etc.
0 -
Wait so sprinters (100 meter- 200 meter runners) don't carb up either? Again, if sugar is so bad, then why don't endurance athletes just eat fat a protein and totally disregard carbs?SymbolismNZ wrote: »Bringing swimming into the conversation of long term endurance sports is an interesting one, especially considering Phelps is a sprint swimmer and doesn't do the longer distances.
Very few people will ever require the output of energy he requires and even he has changed his diet as he's aged to be a lot more rational and reasonable.
[edit by MFP moderator]
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »What I find interesting is that, why do humans tend to settle on diets that are generally higher in carbs? Carbs in traditional diets in most places often are the largest contributor to energy. There are exceptions in extreme environments like the inuits, which still manage to eat an average of 15-20% carbs or much higher than most keto dieters, but the general trend appears to be leaning towards carbs almost everywhere.
Even modern diets everywhere appear to gravitate towards carbs as the highest contributor to energy. Interestingly, this trend scales up and down with average energy intake.World: 2780 kcal/person/day (Carbohydrates: 63%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%)
Developed countries: 3420 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 53%, Proteins: 12%, Fats: 34%
Developing World: 2630 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 67%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 23%
Sub-Saharan Africa: 2240 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 72%, Proteins: 10%, Fats: 19%
Central Africa: 1820 kcal/person/day Carbohydrates: 75%, Proteins: 11%, Fats: 26%
Outside of personal preference, consuming an adequate amount of carbs appears to be the natural tendency of humans. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the future carbs do prove to beneficial outside of the nutrients attached to them like fat was, but even if this doesn't happen I find dubbing such a diet as inferior to be an odd claim.
This makes sense as carbs are typically cheap while meat tends to be more expensive. This is why I grew up despising my Mom's meatloaf, which was essentially a loaf of bread with a hamburger patty and some spices.
I would agree with this assessment. Every time I spent time in country with the locals it was a stew with roots/tubers of some sort, a meat, and a piece of bread. Meat was a delicacy and a nice treat.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »RobynTheresa wrote: »I've been watching the CICO discussions on this forum with interest. CICO is definitely not a myth, however for optimal health it is not the only consideration for weight loss.
I get what you are saying, but the debate over CICO isn't about optimal health but has always been about weight loss. Losing weight and health and the same but different. In your above context though, CICO is the only consideration for weight loss. Optimal health is about being a healthy weight and maintaining systemic functions.
Is "Optimal health" the target for most people? Is it not okay to be satisfied with "reasonable health"? Especially considering no one would really be able to define optimal in this case? Especially since weight loss has such a huge benefit to health to start with?
Of course we want optimal health,
Meh. I want better health that I can enjoy.
8 -
Lol, so people you disagree with, resorts you to name calling? That's usually the course someone takes when they lack skills in actually debating.My god so many on here are just total D-bags - no wonder there are so many messed up people in this world. Forget debating carbs and sugar and check into a mental health professional -and it would help if some of you got a life outside of here also.
And the "get a life" comment is also a reflection of someone who worries more about others lives than their own. Why are you here? To learn, educate or troll? So far I can't tell.
Especially ironic after this post:But the point is - it works for me. If something else works for you -great -I am happy for you. I dont feel the need to call someone an idiot because they dont do what I do.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 8 -
Lol, so people you disagree with, resorts you to name calling? That's usually the course someone takes when they lack skills in actually debating.My god so many on here are just total D-bags - no wonder there are so many messed up people in this world. Forget debating carbs and sugar and check into a mental health professional -and it would help if some of you got a life outside of here also.
And the "get a life" comment is also a reflection of someone who worries more about others lives than their own. Why are you here? To learn, educate or troll? So far I can't tell.
Especially ironic after this post:But the point is - it works for me. If something else works for you -great -I am happy for you. I dont feel the need to call someone an idiot because they dont do what I do.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If I had a dollar for every time someone calling others mean ends up being the most insulting person in the thread...15 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions