Weight loss woo keeps getting worse.
Options
Replies
-
YepItsKriss wrote: »
I believe he is talking about tape worms and NOPE I heard a story of a lady who tired it only to die. The tape worms had left her digestive track to other parts of her body and attach to some of her organs. This lead to her death.0 -
YepItsKriss wrote: »YepItsKriss wrote: »
I believe he is talking about tape worms and NOPE I heard a story of a lady who tired it only to die. The tape worms had left her digestive track to other parts of her body and attach to some of her organs. This lead to her death.
i know about that but they said "kelp"
altho i never did look it up, i totally forgot
Me too. But basically a kelp tapeworm sounds like something I don't need to google. Particularly not at work
I try and keep my feet on the ground and remember the major food groups but I get as far as biscuits, chocolate, bacon, and burnt crispy bits and feel like I'm missing something important
0 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »Side note my aunts back at it. Today she told me she reworked the public school snack program to chocolate chip granola bars and mini sugary cereal boxes with milk off of fresh apples and sandwiches because their lower calorie and shes fighting the obesity problem. By swapping apples for chocolate granola bars. Funnily they are 150-200 calorie bars. The apples they had been using were around 90 calories. Her logic just dumbfounds me
edited to wonder if shell be putting butter on their granola bars
Oh Goodie.
Aunt stories again. I've missed those.
So sugar cereal instead of sandwiches and chocolate chip granola bars instead of apples. And she has the authority to make the changes? Can't wait to hear when the parents complain and she is forced to change it back. I'd hide from her that week if I was you
0 -
This whole thing was a good read from start to finish 0
-
YepItsKriss wrote: »So this week I'm doing the intermittent keto - parsley diet for my blood type. Who's with me?
Oh I am totally in. I just had someone on my personal feed write about how sugar stops weight loss and something about plexus products? I don't know what those are but maybe we should add the 0 sugar otherwise we won't lose as much weight even with the parsley
Me too. I unfriended them.0 -
3
-
Thanks for that! I missed that episode. Posted it on my FB.
I did watch his Halloween episode last night and it was hilarious and awesome.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Only if it's "medically prescribed" parsley as opposed to the strictly recreational kind.
5 -
I don’t know how much worse it has gotten. I think for sure we can chalk most of it up to social media like the poster above said. I certainly remember doing the cabbage soup diet with my mom when I was 15 and wow that gross. We also took white cross “energy” pills, I believe they have since been pulled for being essentially speed. I’m sure if the internet had been around (thanks a lot AL Gore for not getting on its invention sooner) we would have tried lots of other fun things!0
-
The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.1 -
The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
Is this what that "refeeds and diet breaks" post was about?1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »The unicorns never truly went away. They just retreated to a mythical oasis from which they can observe those left behind. If one is lucky, they can see the rainbows created then they piss themselves laughing at the foolishness of mortals.
They're in Scotland, so magical a country the national animal is a unicorn. Just another reason us Scots are cool AF.
And dragons in Wales! And giants in Northern Ireland!
And chupacabras in the USA!
Mexico*
And Texas... so USA.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »The unicorns never truly went away. They just retreated to a mythical oasis from which they can observe those left behind. If one is lucky, they can see the rainbows created then they piss themselves laughing at the foolishness of mortals.
They're in Scotland, so magical a country the national animal is a unicorn. Just another reason us Scots are cool AF.
And dragons in Wales! And giants in Northern Ireland!
And chupacabras in the USA!
Mexico*
And Texas... so USA.
"Texas here, anyone from Texas?"0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
Is this what that "refeeds and diet breaks" post was about?
In part but more than just that. Go in a take a look. There is a wealth of info and links in that thread.2 -
YepItsKriss wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
I had this very argument with my psychiatrist when I was getting help with my binge eating disorder. I was at 135 pounds and felt good there but he insisted I eat more and gain because I looked "sick".
I refused for a while and he threatened to stop giving me my medications if I didn't. He insisted a min if 2000 calories but still thought I should eat more then that and I tried mentioning adaptive thermogenesis and he wouldn't hear it. He said that even if I gained more weight then expected I would just eventually balance out and I could just buy new clothes.
To avoid losing my meds I did what I was told and I did put on a lot more weight then I should have simply because after 25 years of being over weight my maintenance was probably lower then it would have normally and I wasn't given the opportunity to figure out what that was.
I had a maintenance number figured out for my lifestyle I was living but he was insisting that I also stop doing as much cardio as well.
Damn, dude. The forums are depressing as hell today.
I'm sorry you had to go through that. Kudos on continuing to work and progress your health and fitness.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
Is this what that "refeeds and diet breaks" post was about?
In part but more than just that. Go in a take a look. There is a wealth of info and links in that thread.
I know.... but it's also waaaay above my head for the most part. I haven't had a chance to watch the video but got the cliff notes from some of the early responses.
I'm really glad it cropped up, though. I think it addresses some of what I've been going through lately.2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUKJTbOD-pc&t=0s
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions