What drives you nuts on the main forums?
Options
Replies
-
BeachIron, my only comment in this thread so far, was about folks who aren't debating. They are simply being intolerant, unhelpful, and under the guise of "blunt", rude.
I don't know you, but am surprised that on what I thought was a closed group discussion, you've taken such a shot at women working in the way they choose, to be more fit and healthy.
I am glad to share what I've learned works for me - but it's for me. If someone else is following the eating plan I use, I'm glad to explain it, but other than that..how you get to your goal, is your business.0 -
I didn't say it negated it. Just made those discretionary calories much much much much smaller. Probably less than one KK for many folks.
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 -
BeachIron, my only comment in this thread so far, was about folks who aren't debating. They are simply being intolerant, unhelpful, and under the guise of "blunt", rude.
I don't know you, but am surprised that on what I thought was a closed group discussion, you've taken such a shot at women working in the way they choose, to be more fit and healthy.
I am glad to share what I've learned works for me - but it's for me. If someone else is following the eating plan I use, I'm glad to explain it, but other than that..how you get to your goal, is your business.
This entire thread is judgmental, intolerant and rude.
My inclusion of women in my comment was in response to the repeated references to "males" in here. Pot meet kettle.
I suppose some people do not understand sarcasm though.
Anyway, :flowerforyou:0 -
Dont know you. Don't know much about your history.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.
Interesting post though.0 -
I didn't say it negated it. Just made those discretionary calories much much much much smaller. Probably less than one KK for many folks.
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.
Whilst I agree that for some women, particularly those with metabolic issues, who are not very active and who are looking to lose weight, yes, their discretionary calories may be quite low, however, it is not the case for many women in their 40s and above. I am not young at all, have had medical issues in the past (non diet related), have a desk job, do no cardio, yet still have a decent amount of discretionary calories (and manage to get a bunch of fruits and veggies and whatnot in). I really am not unusual or different, in fact I am pretty ordinary. I do not say this to 'rub anyone's' nose in anything as I know it is harder for people with metabolic issues and/or those who have medical issues that make them less active, but, I am just trying to make the point that you do not have to be a guy or be young or wear a shirt to also be able to have a decent amount of discretionary calories. Using that as a 'weapon' is silly imo. It's a blanket statement which is as bad as blanket statements that all women that are a bit older need to eat this way or that way.0 -
I dont believe i've used anything as a "weapon".
I didn't say it negated it. Just made those discretionary calories much much much much smaller. Probably less than one KK for many folks.
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.
Whilst I agree that for some women, particularly those with metabolic issues, who are not very active and who are looking to lose weight, yes, their discretionary calories may be quite low, however, it is not the case for many women in their 40s and above. I am not young at all, have had medical issues in the past (non diet related), have a desk job, do no cardio, yet still have a decent amount of discretionary calories (and manage to get a bunch of fruits and veggies and whatnot in). I really am not unusual or different, in fact I am pretty ordinary. I do not say this to 'rub anyone's' nose in anything as I know it is harder for people with metabolic issues and/or those who have medical issues that make them less active, but, I am just trying to make the point that you do not have to be a guy or be young or wear a shirt to also be able to have a decent amount of discretionary calories. Using that as a 'weapon' is silly imo. It's a blanket statement which is as bad as blanket statements that all women that are a bit older need to eat this way or that way.
I don't necessarily consider you "ordinary", nor do I think many people would.
I'm not all that "ordinary" myself, when you consider the general population.
But again, I've not used anything as a weapon. Are you suggesting I have, or that others have?
Until two years ago, I had quite a few discretionary calories as we're calling them, as well. Things have changed a bit for me... And I'm adjusting. That's the great thing about mfp. It gives us the tools. And if we're lucky, the support we need.
ps: kudos on doing all the work you've done now. It will pay off in loads in a few years. I'm glad I did what I did, and learned to eat when I did.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?
Girl crush.
0 -
I dont believe i've used anything as a "weapon".
I didn't say it negated it. Just made those discretionary calories much much much much smaller. Probably less than one KK for many folks.
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.
Whilst I agree that for some women, particularly those with metabolic issues, who are not very active and who are looking to lose weight, yes, their discretionary calories may be quite low, however, it is not the case for many women in their 40s and above. I am not young at all, have had medical issues in the past (non diet related), have a desk job, do no cardio, yet still have a decent amount of discretionary calories (and manage to get a bunch of fruits and veggies and whatnot in). I really am not unusual or different, in fact I am pretty ordinary. I do not say this to 'rub anyone's' nose in anything as I know it is harder for people with metabolic issues and/or those who have medical issues that make them less active, but, I am just trying to make the point that you do not have to be a guy or be young or wear a shirt to also be able to have a decent amount of discretionary calories. Using that as a 'weapon' is silly imo. It's a blanket statement which is as bad as blanket statements that all women that are a bit older need to eat this way or that way.
I don't necessarily consider you "ordinary", nor do I think many people would.
I'm not all that "ordinary" myself, when you consider the general population.
But again, I've not used anything as a weapon. Are you suggesting I have, or that others have?
Until two years ago, I had quite a few discretionary calories as we're calling them, as well. Things have changed a bit for me... And I'm adjusting. That's the great thing about mfp. It gives us the tools. And if we're lucky, the support we need.
ps: kudos on doing all the work you've done now. It will pay off in loads in a few years. I'm glad I did what I did, and learned to eat when I did.
Thank you for the not ordinary comment. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that I am not athletic (outside lifting) and never have been. A very bad illness I had a few years back led to significant muscle loss and has left me with lower energy than many. So while I am fortunate not to have any metabolic issues, I am not outside the norm in the gene or 'luck' factor. I do get that many have a harder time due to metabolic issues, and need to be more careful with their macros. I suppose that the dismissal of comments from guys irks me as many have very valid input and insight. I suppose I find it ironic that I, a female well into her 40s, am often aligned in my perspective with them, but apparently they have no right to make comments as they are not. Does the fact that I have a few years on me and bewbs make me saying it suddenly worthwhile yet if they say it, not? Does it change it from being wrong to right? (Rhetorical question btw). A comment is either valid or not, the source in general should be irrelevant in that regard. I won't even address the shirtless comments (earlier in this thread - not you I believe) as they are just silly.
none of ^^this is intended to be a dig at you at all, just my perspective and an explanation as to my comments.
Edited - holy moly! Remind me not to try to respond to a post from a phone with a busted screen! - a whole part a sentence got missed.0 -
Bewbs. Love the spelling!Thank you for the not ordinary comment. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that I am not athletic (outside lifting) and never have been. A very bad illness I had a few years back led to significant muscle loss and has left me with lower energy than many. So while I am fortunate not to have any metabolic issues, I am not outside the norm in the gene or 'luck' factor. I do get that many have a harder time due to metabolic issues, and need to be more careful with their irks me as many have very valid input and insight. I suppose I find it ironic that I, a female well into her 40s, am often aligned in my perspective with them, but apparently they have no right to make comments as they are not. Does the fact that I have a few years on me and bewbs make me saying it suddenly worthwhile yet if they say it, not? Does it change it from being wrong to right? (Rhetorical question btw). A comment is either valid or not, the source in general should be irrelevant in that regard. I won't even address the shirtless comments (earlier in this thread - not you I believe) as they are just silly.
^^none of ^^this is intended to be a dig, just my perspective and an explanation as to my comments.
This is all an interesting adventure. I think we ALL have a lot to learn from each other. I'm just not sure we always make the point we hope to make. And I'm not always sure we all know we have things to learn from the folks we're talking to.
I've not "followed" your posts, but do remember a few, and have never gotten that sense from you. You say what you mean, and generally say it very well. That's all I seek around here. cheers.0 -
I don’t believe that the frustration expressed here at the beginning of this post is really about young men that don’t wear shirts, it just seems like a quick way for the poster to make a point/example that that person in question is so far removed from them and not simply because of age/ gender/ shirt status, but because - hello, they are not them. There’s more to following a HFLC dietary plan than just weight loss and there are unique medical benefits that cannot be seen. People don’t see how HFLC can help an individual with things like depression, energy levels, chronic heartburn, avoiding scary blood pressure drops after eating certain food, etc. So when people dismiss it as just a fad or a trick, it’s highly frustrating. If you are a person that doesn’t have to eat “clean” (whatever the “clean” is to that individual) on a regular basis and not have these issues, good for you, but why the need to constantly assert this/gang up on other people that clearly have issues with certain foods?0
-
I'm one of those people with health issues that require me to be pretty careful with my diet. I've never felt "ganged up on" or victimised by comments by "shirtless 20-something guys" The Twinkie Eaters, or anyone else who has been singled out in this strange thread.
My experience isn't theirs, and theirs isn't mine. I don't worry about their diet and don't feel personally bothered by the very generalised advice given on the main forums here to people who are assumed to be reasonably healthy apart from their weight issues. I realise that advice is given to the general population (i.e. NOT ME, 42 year old woman with PCOS and IR and other food sensitivities).
I appreciate posts from Sara, Sidesteel and BeachIron--and many others--as I can take what I need from their posts and disregard the bits that I know don't apply to me. I spend more time reading the main forums and the Eat, Train, Progress group than I spend in the paleo, low carb, PCOS, etc. groups because quite honestly, I have very little tolerance for the sorts of posts and the personalities that dogmatic adherence to certain diets attracts. I'm really tired of all that nonsense, and have felt more than a bit hesitant to participate to any real degree in these diet-specific groups.
I've had an excellent experience with varying degrees of a low carb, paleo diet, and will eat this way for the rest of my life. I don't view it as a "fad diet", as it's my diet out of necessity, really. I know there are many others like me, and another bunch who are much worse off health wise and are finding great relief from their symptoms by eating this way. However, I also don't feel offended by those who view paleo and/or low carb as fad diets. For many people, low carb and paleo are indeed fad diets--something they do to restrict temporarily. That sort of restriction just isn't necessary for the vast majority of people to lose body fat, and it isn't helpful or healthy to suggest that everyone eats this way, so I never do.
When I see the comments in the main forums saying just that--that it isn't necessary to restrict carbs to a great degree, or to eliminate grains, dairy, etc. etc.-- I understand it to mean for the vast majority of people out there. Not me, and not some other freaky mutant like me with hormonal issues, metabolic dysfunction and a couple of annoying food intolerances. Just meant for your average Joe or Jane who is trying to achieve fat loss and fitness.
:flowerforyou:0 -
I don’t believe that the frustration expressed here at the beginning of this post is really about young men that don’t wear shirts, it just seems like a quick way for the poster to make a point/example that that person in question is so far removed from them and not simply because of age/ gender/ shirt status, but because - hello, they are not them. There’s more to following a HFLC dietary plan than just weight loss and there are unique medical benefits that cannot be seen. People don’t see how HFLC can help an individual with things like depression, energy levels, chronic heartburn, avoiding scary blood pressure drops after eating certain food, etc. So when people dismiss it as just a fad or a trick, it’s highly frustrating. If you are a person that doesn’t have to eat “clean” (whatever the “clean” is to that individual) on a regular basis and not have these issues, good for you, but why the need to constantly assert this/gang up on other people that clearly have issues with certain foods?
Then possibly applying a blanket statement to express that frustration is not appropriate and should be directed at people who do dismiss the need out of hand. Isn't it blanket statements that are being complained about? I also do not see how not being someone is relevant - would that not apply to every single question and every single poster? For example, being a female in her 40's therefore does not 'qualify' me to give advice/input to a 20 year old guy? I get the point that is being made, but strawmen arguments and automatically dismissing someone just because of age/gender/shirtless status is just as bad as the reason/source of the frustration imo.0 -
When I see the comments in the main forums saying just that--that it isn't necessary to restrict carbs to a great degree, or to eliminate grains, dairy, etc. etc.-- I understand it to mean for the vast majority of people out there. Not me, and not some other freaky mutant like me with hormonal issues, metabolic dysfunction and a couple of annoying food intolerances. Just meant for your average Joe or Jane who is trying to achieve fat loss and fitness.
I think that's what bothers me the most in the main forum. "You are not a special snowflake."
Everyone's body is different, that's like saying no one can have PCOS, diabetes, thyroid issues, a food allergy, a combination of things, etc.
If I eat a doughnut or a sub sandwich, I'm going to need a 3-4 hour nap because of how bad the carbs & sugars crash my system. But I also understand that there are many people out there that it has no effect on. It's when people tell me what does and doesn't have an effect on me that chafes my nerves.0 -
accidentally double posted - see next post0
-
Then possibly applying a blanket statement to express that frustration is not appropriate and should be directed at people who do dismiss the need out of hand. Isn't it blanket statements that are being complained about? I also do not see how not being someone is relevant - would that not apply to every single question and every single poster? For example, being a female in her 40's therefore does not 'qualify' me to give advice/input to a 20 year old guy? I get the point that is being made, but strawmen arguments and automatically dismissing someone just because of age/gender/shirtless status is just as bad as the reason/source of the frustration imo.
The frustration that I'm talking about is not about people giving friendly advice or sharing their own unique experiences. The frustration is about this mob mentality that is sometimes present against LC dietary plans that are greatly beneficial to many people (if you do not do that then this does not apply to you). Also, I think one of the best things about my fitness pal and my fitness journey in general is giving and receiving advice to and from people of all ages, genders and body types (the gym I go to is mostly swole 20-something guys and I greatly respect what they do and in return I get respect from them). The point I am saying was that if you are not that individual, no matter who you are, you can not know every aspect that impacts their person decision to follow their plan and when people mock or dismiss it as being a fad it is frustrating (again note that what I'm talking about here is something different than giving friendly advice or sharing a personal experience). If you do not do this then this does not apply to you so you shouldn't take it personally. I really do not care what plan other people follow because it's their body. That's why I go to this group, because it is designated specifically for people to talk about LC and if you don't like LC it's easy to avoid. I know LCHF is not for everyone and I respect other people's opinions enough to not go into groups that are not interested in following this plan and try to push what I do.0 -
Then possibly applying a blanket statement to express that frustration is not appropriate and should be directed at people who do dismiss the need out of hand. Isn't it blanket statements that are being complained about? I also do not see how not being someone is relevant - would that not apply to every single question and every single poster? For example, being a female in her 40's therefore does not 'qualify' me to give advice/input to a 20 year old guy? I get the point that is being made, but strawmen arguments and automatically dismissing someone just because of age/gender/shirtless status is just as bad as the reason/source of the frustration imo.
The frustration that I'm talking about is not about people giving friendly advice or sharing their own unique experiences. The frustration is about this mob mentality that is sometimes present against LC dietary plans that are greatly beneficial to many people (if you do not do that then this does not apply to you). Also, I think one of the best things about my fitness pal and my fitness journey in general is giving and receiving advice to and from people of all ages, genders and body types (the gym I go to is mostly swole 20-something guys and I greatly respect what they do and in return I get respect from them). The point I am saying was that if you are not that individual, no matter who you are, you can not know every aspect that impacts their person decision to follow their plan and when people mock or dismiss it as being a fad it is frustrating (again note that what I'm talking about here is something different than giving friendly advice or sharing a personal experience). If you do not do this then this does not apply to you so you shouldn't take it personally. I really do not care what plan other people follow because it's their body. That's why I go to this group, because it is designated specifically for people to talk about LC and if you don't like LC it's easy to avoid. I know LCHF is not for everyone and I respect other people's opinions enough to not go into groups that are not interested in following this plan and try to push what I do.
I do not take it personally and I am not sure where you have seen me push anything at all, unless you are referring to anyone else, which I have not seen either on this thread.
All of the above still does not 'make it ok' to apply blanket statements when the blanket statement is complaining about people making blanket statements.0 -
I have one last thought on this all:
I often see, when someone says they want to go low carb, or paleo, or south beach, atkins, or, or or, numerous folks will ask WHY they want to limit themselves. Why would they want to eliminate foods.
Why not? For some folks that does seem to be easier.
Folks who are eating low carb, or paleo, or south beach or or or are said to be on a "diet" that's doomed to fail, and non sustainable.
While folks who are measuring and counting are on a "lifestyle" that's maintainable, sustainable forever.
I try to be open to any healthy sounding thing folks say they want to try (again, everyone's at a different place on this journey...) and for some, maybe eliminating "the whites" IS a sustainable lifestyle. It has been for me for the last 12 years!
I could not imagine counting "forever" as some swear they will do, but can easily see myself keeping the whites out.
Yet one (the whites) would be called "dieting" by some while counting and measuring but eating the types of food you want is not.
We're all on a diet. The way we eat is a diet. Maybe it's a weight loss diet, or a diabetic diet, or a vegetarian diet, or a bulking diet...
And maybe it's called Atkins, or South Beach.
Maybe we do it 80/20. Maybe we always do it.
But if we're trying to shed a few, or shape our bodies by eating a certain way, we're dieting.
I just try to be supportive of folks where they are, and where they want to go, as long as it seems healthy. And, like everyone else here, I'd like my opinions to be considered valued, and treated with respect.
cheers:drinker:0 -
Then possibly applying a blanket statement to express that frustration is not appropriate and should be directed at people who do dismiss the need out of hand. Isn't it blanket statements that are being complained about? I also do not see how not being someone is relevant - would that not apply to every single question and every single poster? For example, being a female in her 40's therefore does not 'qualify' me to give advice/input to a 20 year old guy? I get the point that is being made, but strawmen arguments and automatically dismissing someone just because of age/gender/shirtless status is just as bad as the reason/source of the frustration imo.
The frustration that I'm talking about is not about people giving friendly advice or sharing their own unique experiences. The frustration is about this mob mentality that is sometimes present against LC dietary plans that are greatly beneficial to many people (if you do not do that then this does not apply to you). Also, I think one of the best things about my fitness pal and my fitness journey in general is giving and receiving advice to and from people of all ages, genders and body types (the gym I go to is mostly swole 20-something guys and I greatly respect what they do and in return I get respect from them). The point I am saying was that if you are not that individual, no matter who you are, you can not know every aspect that impacts their person decision to follow their plan and when people mock or dismiss it as being a fad it is frustrating (again note that what I'm talking about here is something different than giving friendly advice or sharing a personal experience). If you do not do this then this does not apply to you so you shouldn't take it personally. I really do not care what plan other people follow because it's their body. That's why I go to this group, because it is designated specifically for people to talk about LC and if you don't like LC it's easy to avoid. I know LCHF is not for everyone and I respect other people's opinions enough to not go into groups that are not interested in following this plan and try to push what I do.
I do not take it personally and I am not sure where you have seen me push anything at all, unless you are referring to anyone else, which I have not seen either on this thread.
All of the above still does not 'make it ok' to apply blanket statements when the blanket statement is complaining about people making blanket statements.
Just noticed your little edit there at the end.
[/quote]
"All of the above still does not 'make it ok' to apply blanket statements when the blanket statement is complaining about people making blanket statements."
[/quote]
I never said it did.
I said that I didn't believe that was the intention in the first place.0 -
Just noticed your little edit there at the end."All of the above still does not 'make it ok' to apply blanket statements when the blanket statement is complaining about people making blanket statements."
I never said it did.
I said that I didn't believe that was the intention in the first place.
My so called 'little edit' was made 3 hours ago and 4 minutes after I originally posted as you can see from the post. I actually tweaked what I originally said to be clearer.
As for the intention...well, as neither of us are the actual person who made any of the posts and they have not responded, we will just have to have our different interpretation on what the intent was.
And I may need to make a 'little edit' to this post as I may have screwed up the quotes.
Edit...yep, screwed up the quotes.0 -
Just noticed your little edit there at the end."All of the above still does not 'make it ok' to apply blanket statements when the blanket statement is complaining about people making blanket statements."
I never said it did.
I said that I didn't believe that was the intention in the first place.
My so called 'little edit' was made 3 hours ago and 4 minutes after I originally posted as you can see from the post. I actually tweaked what I originally said to be clearer.
As for the intention...well, as neither of us are the actual person who made any of the posts and they have not responded, we will just have to have our different interpretation on what the intent was.
And I may need to make a 'little edit' to this post as I may have screwed up the quotes.
Edit...yep, screwed up the quotes.
I said little edit because it was literally a little edit, but I wanted to reply to it. I did not know the person prior to my replies here, but they did tell me later in a short message later that said I clarified what they were trying to say.
I messed up the quotes on my last post too.
edited this one too - to change "it" to "I". 0
