What drives you nuts on the main forums?
Options
Replies
-
I think this is the fastest I've seen a thread move in this group
<Insert Joke here about the increase in speed is probably due to most people in this thread eat carbs>0 -
I think this is the fastest I've seen a thread move in this group
we're just all here for Sara and SS.....
they are inspiring...uh I mean shirtless...
This^^^^0 -
I think this is the fastest I've seen a thread move in this group
we're just all here for Sara and SS.....
they are inspiring...uh I mean shirtless...
This^^^^
:laugh:0 -
- Starvation mode discussions really wind me up. Starvation mode doesn't happen to people who are 100 lbs overweight and eating 1500 cals a day. Other things, like your body using both fat and protein for fuel to make up the cal difference, but that isn't "starvation mode".
- The 20 something guys preaching to everyone else about "how it works" ... those guys generally don't have enough experience in life and their bodies to know what it is like to be in your late 40's and trying to lose weight and gain muscle.
- IIFYM and CICO drive me insane. They totally ignore the content of the food, equating the carbs in a twinkie with the carbs in a salad is whacked.
- Being anti clean eating and proud of eating processed crap.
- Thinking that something as crappy for you as refined sugars are okay in moderation so that you don't deprive yourself of something you enjoy. This is like saying that you will only use heroin in moderation so that you don't deprive yourself of something that you enjoy.
Is that a cigar you are smoking in your avi?0 -
People who make assumptions about someones level of knowledge based on whether or not they are wearing a shirt.
I half hope you changed your photo, just to make this point :-)
Oh no! I this one!!! 0 -
- Starvation mode discussions really wind me up. Starvation mode doesn't happen to people who are 100 lbs overweight and eating 1500 cals a day. Other things, like your body using both fat and protein for fuel to make up the cal difference, but that isn't "starvation mode".
- The 20 something guys preaching to everyone else about "how it works" ... those guys generally don't have enough experience in life and their bodies to know what it is like to be in your late 40's and trying to lose weight and gain muscle.
- IIFYM and CICO drive me insane. They totally ignore the content of the food, equating the carbs in a twinkie with the carbs in a salad is whacked.
- Being anti clean eating and proud of eating processed crap.
- Thinking that something as crappy for you as refined sugars are okay in moderation so that you don't deprive yourself of something you enjoy. This is like saying that you will only use heroin in moderation so that you don't deprive yourself of something that you enjoy.
Is that a cigar you are smoking in your avi?
OH!! I just choked *LMAO*0 -
- Starvation mode discussions really wind me up. Starvation mode doesn't happen to people who are 100 lbs overweight and eating 1500 cals a day. Other things, like your body using both fat and protein for fuel to make up the cal difference, but that isn't "starvation mode".
- The 20 something guys preaching to everyone else about "how it works" ... those guys generally don't have enough experience in life and their bodies to know what it is like to be in your late 40's and trying to lose weight and gain muscle.
- IIFYM and CICO drive me insane. They totally ignore the content of the food, equating the carbs in a twinkie with the carbs in a salad is whacked.
- Being anti clean eating and proud of eating processed crap.
- Thinking that something as crappy for you as refined sugars are okay in moderation so that you don't deprive yourself of something you enjoy. This is like saying that you will only use heroin in moderation so that you don't deprive yourself of something that you enjoy.
Is that a cigar you are smoking in your avi?
0 -
Lose weight in only 15 minutes by changing your stance, hair, clothes, camera zoom and filter
Cant find a sarcastic smiley though ;(
(thank you reddit)0 -
With PCOS? I'm not so sure that's true.
And sorry, but just because you, as a male in his prime can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, it doesn't mean that I, as not only a female, but one with PCOS can.
If you're going to go there, it just means you get fewer twinkies than I do. It doesn't mean you can't lose weight eating them.
ps: nice pecs.:flowerforyou:0 -
With PCOS? I'm not so sure that's true.
And sorry, but just because you, as a male in his prime can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, it doesn't mean that I, as not only a female, but one with PCOS can.
If you're going to go there, it just means you get fewer twinkies than I do. It doesn't mean you can't lose weight eating them.
ps: nice pecs.:flowerforyou:
I'm 100% certain it is true. I am claiming that even with diabetes or pcos or insulin resistance, I can put you on a diet consisting of only twinkies and you will oxidize fat. It might be a very low number of twinkies but you will eventually reach a point where fat oxidation occurs.0 -
okay. Is that sustainable? How many twinkies would you guess you could put a 180LB woman with PCOS on and have her lose weight? Given the extreme insulin resistance, I mean.
With PCOS? I'm not so sure that's true.
And sorry, but just because you, as a male in his prime can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, it doesn't mean that I, as not only a female, but one with PCOS can.
If you're going to go there, it just means you get fewer twinkies than I do. It doesn't mean you can't lose weight eating them.
ps: nice pecs.:flowerforyou:
I'm 100% certain it is true. I am claiming that even with diabetes or pcos or insulin resistance, I can put you on a diet consisting of only twinkies and you will oxidize fat. It might be a very low number of twinkies but you will eventually reach a point where fat oxidation occurs.
Edit: old twinkies, not the new ones which supposedly are smaller and have fewer calories.
0 -
okay. Is that sustainable? How many twinkies would you guess you could put a 180LB woman with PCOS on and have her lose weight? Given the extreme insulin resistance, I mean.
With PCOS? I'm not so sure that's true.
And sorry, but just because you, as a male in his prime can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, it doesn't mean that I, as not only a female, but one with PCOS can.
If you're going to go there, it just means you get fewer twinkies than I do. It doesn't mean you can't lose weight eating them.
ps: nice pecs.:flowerforyou:
I'm 100% certain it is true. I am claiming that even with diabetes or pcos or insulin resistance, I can put you on a diet consisting of only twinkies and you will oxidize fat. It might be a very low number of twinkies but you will eventually reach a point where fat oxidation occurs.
It's not sustainable regardless of your stats or insulin status, but I wasn't the one that posed that scenario. Sustainability wasn't a part of the discussion. Nobody could sustain it due to eventual nutrient deficiencies, you'd have horrible adherence from lack of satiety, you wouldn't maintain lbm, and it would basically be an all around stupid endeavor.
But you could lose weight if energy intake were low enough.0 -
Of course not, but I'd like a number. How many calories of sugar and what not would that be to cause, or allow for weight loss...Versus, say...how many one of the young men like bulkwhatshisname who brags about his 1400 calorie breakfasts.
okay. Is that sustainable? How many twinkies would you guess you could put a 180LB woman with PCOS on and have her lose weight? Given the extreme insulin resistance, I mean.
With PCOS? I'm not so sure that's true.
And sorry, but just because you, as a male in his prime can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, it doesn't mean that I, as not only a female, but one with PCOS can.
If you're going to go there, it just means you get fewer twinkies than I do. It doesn't mean you can't lose weight eating them.
ps: nice pecs.:flowerforyou:
I'm 100% certain it is true. I am claiming that even with diabetes or pcos or insulin resistance, I can put you on a diet consisting of only twinkies and you will oxidize fat. It might be a very low number of twinkies but you will eventually reach a point where fat oxidation occurs.
It's not sustainable regardless of your stats or insulin status, but I wasn't the one that posed that scenario. Sustainability wasn't a part of the discussion. Nobody could sustain it due to eventual nutrient deficiencies, you'd have horrible adherence from lack of satiety, you wouldn't maintain lbm, and it would basically be an all around stupid endeavor.
But you could lose weight if energy intake were low enough.
Granted that post we're referring to was rather hyperbolic, but based on a real frustration that some posters make it seem so simple (and easy) to lose weight while eating all the sugary snacks "in your macros". For some folks a single krispy kreme would bust their macro for sugar and carbs.
oddly, many of the same folks say you can't have beer every day and lose weight.0 -
Of course not, but I'd like a number. How many calories of sugar and what not would that be to cause, or allow for weight loss...Versus, say...how many one of the young men like bulkwhatshisname who brags about his 1400 calorie breakfasts.
okay. Is that sustainable? How many twinkies would you guess you could put a 180LB woman with PCOS on and have her lose weight? Given the extreme insulin resistance, I mean.
With PCOS? I'm not so sure that's true.
And sorry, but just because you, as a male in his prime can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, it doesn't mean that I, as not only a female, but one with PCOS can.
If you're going to go there, it just means you get fewer twinkies than I do. It doesn't mean you can't lose weight eating them.
ps: nice pecs.:flowerforyou:
I'm 100% certain it is true. I am claiming that even with diabetes or pcos or insulin resistance, I can put you on a diet consisting of only twinkies and you will oxidize fat. It might be a very low number of twinkies but you will eventually reach a point where fat oxidation occurs.
It's not sustainable regardless of your stats or insulin status, but I wasn't the one that posed that scenario. Sustainability wasn't a part of the discussion. Nobody could sustain it due to eventual nutrient deficiencies, you'd have horrible adherence from lack of satiety, you wouldn't maintain lbm, and it would basically be an all around stupid endeavor.
But you could lose weight if energy intake were low enough.
That would vary from person to person. Generally speaking most young active males would have higher expenditures and consequently they'd have a much greater allowance for twinkies.
The same holds true for discretionary intake. I can fit plenty of junk food in my diet. Other people can't. It doesn't change the conceptual validity of moderation or flexible dieting but in practice, you're going to have to very meticulously plan that scoop of ice cream by being careful with the rest of your daily intake, whereas I can probably hammer down 5 scoops without much planning due to having a much bigger energy output and bank of carbohydrates.0 -
Exactly. Thus the OPs (of the twinkie thread) frustration.
Of course not, but I'd like a number. How many calories of sugar and what not would that be to cause, or allow for weight loss...Versus, say...how many one of the young men like bulkwhatshisname who brags about his 1400 calorie breakfasts.
okay. Is that sustainable? How many twinkies would you guess you could put a 180LB woman with PCOS on and have her lose weight? Given the extreme insulin resistance, I mean.
With PCOS? I'm not so sure that's true.
And sorry, but just because you, as a male in his prime can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, it doesn't mean that I, as not only a female, but one with PCOS can.
If you're going to go there, it just means you get fewer twinkies than I do. It doesn't mean you can't lose weight eating them.
ps: nice pecs.:flowerforyou:
I'm 100% certain it is true. I am claiming that even with diabetes or pcos or insulin resistance, I can put you on a diet consisting of only twinkies and you will oxidize fat. It might be a very low number of twinkies but you will eventually reach a point where fat oxidation occurs.
It's not sustainable regardless of your stats or insulin status, but I wasn't the one that posed that scenario. Sustainability wasn't a part of the discussion. Nobody could sustain it due to eventual nutrient deficiencies, you'd have horrible adherence from lack of satiety, you wouldn't maintain lbm, and it would basically be an all around stupid endeavor.
But you could lose weight if energy intake were low enough.
That would vary from person to person. Generally speaking most young active males would have higher expenditures and consequently they'd have a much greater allowance for twinkies.
The same holds true for discretionary intake. I can fit plenty of junk food in my diet. Other people can't. It doesn't change the conceptual validity of moderation or flexible dieting but in practice, you're going to have to very meticulously plan that scoop of ice cream by being careful with the rest of your daily intake, whereas I can probably hammer down 5 scoops without much planning due to having a much bigger energy output and bank of carbohydrates.
IiFYM is a great concept, but for many of the women on here, precious little "discretionary intake" as you aptly put it, fits in there.
Some of our younger, fitter posters, yes, often male, apparently fail to recognize that.
Hey, I'm lucky. I had a frigging fantastic metabolism from birth til 2 years ago. I had NO problem fitting a few pints in when I wanted, and pizza as often as I wanted. My sister, with PCOS, fibro, hypothyroidism and about 7 inches shorter than me, does not...
(And me, now, in menopause lol)
Thus, what drives me nuts on the forums: the inability of some to see things from another's perspective. Context as you called it earlier.0 -
oh! Another one. Seems to happen A LOT over there, and fortunately the regulars over here don't do this. People that hijack threads to carry-on a private debate on the puplic forum that isn't related to the topic. So many people need to have the last word and be RIGHT. Let it go already.0
-
oh! Another one. Seems to happen A LOT over there, and fortunately the regulars over here don't do this. People that hijack threads to carry-on a private debate on the puplic forum that isn't related to the topic. So many people need to have the last word and be RIGHT. Let it go already.
I'm sure everything will be back to normal in no time.And don't forget, the "A CALORIE IS A CALORIE". Idiots.
Then you can return to making these comments behind people's backs in the comfort of the low carb forum...
ETA: It is also perplexing that you made this comment while your profile is littered with what I can only assume are useless calorie estimates and calculations.0 -
Oh! I have another one. People who complain about others debating fitness and nutrition on a fitness and nutrition website!
Or, how about people complaining about fit and healthy people on a fitness and nutrition website.
If only I was sick, seriously overweight, female and/or unhealthy my opinions would be much more valid. Then I would know everything, and be able to tell all the fit and healthy people what they are doing wrong.0 -
okay. Is that sustainable? How many twinkies would you guess you could put a 180LB woman with PCOS on and have her lose weight? Given the extreme insulin resistance, I mean.
With PCOS? I'm not so sure that's true.
And sorry, but just because you, as a male in his prime can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, it doesn't mean that I, as not only a female, but one with PCOS can.
If you're going to go there, it just means you get fewer twinkies than I do. It doesn't mean you can't lose weight eating them.
ps: nice pecs.:flowerforyou:
I'm 100% certain it is true. I am claiming that even with diabetes or pcos or insulin resistance, I can put you on a diet consisting of only twinkies and you will oxidize fat. It might be a very low number of twinkies but you will eventually reach a point where fat oxidation occurs.
Edit: old twinkies, not the new ones which supposedly are smaller and have fewer calories.
A strawman is a strawman for a menopausal woman with PCOS as much as it is for a 180lb 'beefy' young guy. Neither is going to go very far on a diet that only consists of twinkies from a satiety, body composition or a health perspective.0 -
Exactly. Thus the OPs (of the twinkie thread) frustration.
Of course not, but I'd like a number. How many calories of sugar and what not would that be to cause, or allow for weight loss...Versus, say...how many one of the young men like bulkwhatshisname who brags about his 1400 calorie breakfasts.
okay. Is that sustainable? How many twinkies would you guess you could put a 180LB woman with PCOS on and have her lose weight? Given the extreme insulin resistance, I mean.
With PCOS? I'm not so sure that's true.
And sorry, but just because you, as a male in his prime can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, it doesn't mean that I, as not only a female, but one with PCOS can.
If you're going to go there, it just means you get fewer twinkies than I do. It doesn't mean you can't lose weight eating them.
ps: nice pecs.:flowerforyou:
I'm 100% certain it is true. I am claiming that even with diabetes or pcos or insulin resistance, I can put you on a diet consisting of only twinkies and you will oxidize fat. It might be a very low number of twinkies but you will eventually reach a point where fat oxidation occurs.
It's not sustainable regardless of your stats or insulin status, but I wasn't the one that posed that scenario. Sustainability wasn't a part of the discussion. Nobody could sustain it due to eventual nutrient deficiencies, you'd have horrible adherence from lack of satiety, you wouldn't maintain lbm, and it would basically be an all around stupid endeavor.
But you could lose weight if energy intake were low enough.
That would vary from person to person. Generally speaking most young active males would have higher expenditures and consequently they'd have a much greater allowance for twinkies.
The same holds true for discretionary intake. I can fit plenty of junk food in my diet. Other people can't. It doesn't change the conceptual validity of moderation or flexible dieting but in practice, you're going to have to very meticulously plan that scoop of ice cream by being careful with the rest of your daily intake, whereas I can probably hammer down 5 scoops without much planning due to having a much bigger energy output and bank of carbohydrates.
IiFYM is a great concept, but for many of the women on here, precious little "discretionary intake" as you aptly put it, fits in there.
Some of our younger, fitter posters, yes, often male, apparently fail to recognize that.
Hey, I'm lucky. I had a frigging fantastic metabolism from birth til 2 years ago. I had NO problem fitting a few pints in when I wanted, and pizza as often as I wanted. My sister, with PCOS, fibro, hypothyroidism and about 7 inches shorter than me, does not...
(And me, now, in menopause lol)
Thus, what drives me nuts on the forums: the inability of some to see things from another's perspective. Context as you called it earlier.
It does not negate the IIFYM concept (the one that is how it is supposed to be applied not the one that half the people on here think it is - poptarts and twinkies all day, as is evidenced in this thread) - its just that your discretionary calories are lower (and I would challenge anyone myself that insists otherwise) and your macros will be set up differently.0
