Metabolism

124»

Replies

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,236 Member
    edited November 2019
    OP is male, not a she (at least from account info) and has been asking the same questions on the forum for at least the last 3 years I've been here under many different usernames. ETA - 2 usernames in this thread alone!

    ...

    <edited... in the forlorn hope it was option #1 from the ones I had listed>
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    When in doubt of gender I check the person's profile. If they do not list gender, I use neutral pronouns or avoid them.

    This OP's profile indicates male.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    go52182 wrote: »
    go52182 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    go52182 wrote: »
    "Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.

    If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?

    Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.

    When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".

    A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.

    Do you understand macros?

    I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believe IIFYM, you're good to go.

    Do you understand IIFYM means "If it fits your macros?" And if so, why do you think that's a bad idea?

    For "general health," IIFYM is more than adequate as many don't even reach these goals.

    If you're talking about diet restrictions due to health issues that's another ballgame, but you're clearly talking about general health. So yeah, IIFYM.

    And it's wrong to say that using IIFYM inherently means ignoring everything beyond macros, such as micros and fiber, among other nutritionally useful things. That's just as silly as saying that calorie counting inherently means ignoring nutrition.

    Of course using IIFYM and/or calorie counting doesn't inherently mean ignoring nutrition. Of course they don't mean someone is purposefully targeting good nutrition either.

    Um, IIFYM kinda does imply that, at least to the level of macro goals.

    This exactly^. I feel like anyone going to the lengths of counting macros and calories is being pretty cognizant of targeting good nutrition.

    I actually prefer the term Flexible Dieting. Same thing, but some people take IIFYM to mean... if it fits your mouth...🤣

    In one week, I shall adhere to this new IIFYM for a full day.