PALEO: pros, cons and whatever else you may think?
Replies
-
what number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?
darkangel has been making all of these scientific claims backed by studies but is unable to post her sources of proof.0 -
what number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?
darkangel has been making all of these scientific claims backed by studies but is unable to post her sources of proof.
So she should just "go" then? Is that your "scientific" response?0 -
I'll weigh in here in my personal experience. I did Paleo for about 6 months. Tried a Whole30 and failed, tried a 21DSD and failed. Sure, I lost about 7 pounds in one week, but I binged like a mofo. I LOVE food. I love cooking, I love trying new places and a great dinner with friends. Such a restrictive diet for me did not work. I was cancelling out any good I was doing. It's also very expensive if you choose quality cuts. I actually prefer to shop locally at farmers markets, but you are going through good a lot faster because you have to eat more of it to stay full. I was probably spending $200 every 2 weeks on just one person.
In the end, I like the concept behind it, "just eat real food" but for ME, that applies to more than just meat/veggies/fruit. I like to buy local grains and make my own bread and also local yogurt. Besides, cheese makes life a happy happy place.0 -
Pros - It can turn you on to eating more nutrient dense foods compared to yer typical diet. The 'community' is entertaing for a while.
Cons - It can turn you into a orthorexic food nazi who does not realise that, when it comes down to losing the blubber, calories in/out are still king. And, unless you are diagnosed with an intolerance, then there is no need to restrict anything. And the underlying fact that there was no one Paleo diet, it depends where you lived. AND Mark Sisson's carbohydrate curve is beyond laughable and Robb Wolf on carbs has changed positions more times than a cheap prostitute.
I'm glad I went through my Paleo phase but I do look back and laugh at myself ....
I totally agree with you here as I had the same experience. The orthorexia and EXTREME guilt when eating anything "not allowed" or not "pale-approved" was eating me alive. I was miserable, wasted a ton of food and just all around hated life for a while. Now I have toast and some times french fries AND I LOVE IT. Refried beans? YES PLEASE! 0 -
Pros - It can turn you on to eating more nutrient dense foods compared to yer typical diet. The 'community' is entertaing for a while.
Cons - It can turn you into a orthorexic food nazi who does not realise that, when it comes down to losing the blubber, calories in/out are still king. And, unless you are diagnosed with an intolerance, then there is no need to restrict anything. And the underlying fact that there was no one Paleo diet, it depends where you lived. AND Mark Sisson's carbohydrate curve is beyond laughable and Robb Wolf on carbs has changed positions more times than a cheap prostitute.
I'm glad I went through my Paleo phase but I do look back and laugh at myself ....
I totally agree with you here as I had the same experience. The orthorexia and EXTREME guilt when eating anything "not allowed" or not "pale-approved" was eating me alive. I was miserable, wasted a ton of food and just all around hated life for a while. Now I have toast and some times french fries AND I LOVE IT. Refried beans? YES PLEASE!
The "orthorexia" was happening to me as well... SUCKED for me and SUCKED for the people who cared about me. I am very much like you now... Although my diet is based on a "paleo" template, I eat a fair amount of "non paleo" foods for pleasure and variety. Which, in that case makes me not paleo anymore. LOL! Too bad I can't change my name on here, but then again, what's in a name?0 -
So basically....some people don't digest grains well because of their genes. Huh...sounds EXACTLY like what I said.
No, it does not. You made a specific claim regarding the incidence rate, which is not only demonstrably false, but is in contradiction to our evolutionary history.0 -
Yepwhat number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?
darkangel has been making all of these scientific claims backed by studies but is unable to post her sources of proof.
So she should just "go" then? Is that your "scientific" response?0 -
Very intelligent... rock on.
Yepwhat number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?
darkangel has been making all of these scientific claims backed by studies but is unable to post her sources of proof.
So she should just "go" then? Is that your "scientific" response?0 -
Pros - It can turn you on to eating more nutrient dense foods compared to yer typical diet. The 'community' is entertaing for a while.
Cons - It can turn you into a orthorexic food nazi who does not realise that, when it comes down to losing the blubber, calories in/out are still king. And, unless you are diagnosed with an intolerance, then there is no need to restrict anything. And the underlying fact that there was no one Paleo diet, it depends where you lived. AND Mark Sisson's carbohydrate curve is beyond laughable and Robb Wolf on carbs has changed positions more times than a cheap prostitute.
I'm glad I went through my Paleo phase but I do look back and laugh at myself ....
I totally agree with you here as I had the same experience. The orthorexia and EXTREME guilt when eating anything "not allowed" or not "pale-approved" was eating me alive. I was miserable, wasted a ton of food and just all around hated life for a while. Now I have toast and some times french fries AND I LOVE IT. Refried beans? YES PLEASE!
The "orthorexia" was happening to me as well... SUCKED for me and SUCKED for the people who cared about me. I am very much like you now... Although my diet is based on a "paleo" template, I eat a fair amount of "non paleo" foods for pleasure and variety. Which, in that case makes me not paleo anymore. LOL! Too bad I can't change my name on here, but then again, what's in a name?
Actually, you *can* change your name here...at least once.0 -
I am not using the scientific claims that dont exist now am I?
Very intelligent... rock on.
Yepwhat number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?
darkangel has been making all of these scientific claims backed by studies but is unable to post her sources of proof.
So she should just "go" then? Is that your "scientific" response?0 -
But my question would be, why should I care about some undetectable symptoms if they don't affect my heatlh or make me feel bad?
(Sorry - my quoting skills are poor). I have vitiligo. It doesn't make me feel badly and it took about 3 years to spread (fortunately I am pretty pale, so it's not as not noticeable as if I was dark skinned, but my point is, you can have things that are amiss that don't make you feel "badly." I am trying to change my diet because I do think that it may have caused or exacerbated my disorder.
And I see sense in that. Making dietary changes because of any type of disorder, syndrome, disease or other health problem makes perfect sense. If Paleo is your diet choice to try, then absolutely give it a try. If that doesn't help, try something else.
But to change a diet that has kept one healthy for decades just because someone writes a book or blog and says the diet is unhealthy makes zero sense.0 -
No, because you are not really saying anything. Just seems like you come on the forum to get pleasure criticizing. I mean, you don't log your food and you don't log your workout so it poses a question, at least to me. Why do you come here? Maybe it's you who should just go.
I am not using the scientific claims that dont exist now am I?
Very intelligent... rock on.
Yepwhat number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?
darkangel has been making all of these scientific claims backed by studies but is unable to post her sources of proof.
So she should just "go" then? Is that your "scientific" response?0 -
Pros - It can turn you on to eating more nutrient dense foods compared to yer typical diet. The 'community' is entertaing for a while.
Cons - It can turn you into a orthorexic food nazi who does not realise that, when it comes down to losing the blubber, calories in/out are still king. And, unless you are diagnosed with an intolerance, then there is no need to restrict anything. And the underlying fact that there was no one Paleo diet, it depends where you lived. AND Mark Sisson's carbohydrate curve is beyond laughable and Robb Wolf on carbs has changed positions more times than a cheap prostitute.
I'm glad I went through my Paleo phase but I do look back and laugh at myself ....
I totally agree with you here as I had the same experience. The orthorexia and EXTREME guilt when eating anything "not allowed" or not "pale-approved" was eating me alive. I was miserable, wasted a ton of food and just all around hated life for a while. Now I have toast and some times french fries AND I LOVE IT. Refried beans? YES PLEASE!
The "orthorexia" was happening to me as well... SUCKED for me and SUCKED for the people who cared about me. I am very much like you now... Although my diet is based on a "paleo" template, I eat a fair amount of "non paleo" foods for pleasure and variety. Which, in that case makes me not paleo anymore. LOL! Too bad I can't change my name on here, but then again, what's in a name?
Actually, you *can* change your name here...at least once.
Changed it once already... LOL! Kinda stuck with the paleo thing... oh well. Just call me Paleo"ish"Joe
0 -
Meh I go on the forums to help people that need help. I reached a point of nutrition that is lifelong sustainable where I do not need to couny my calories anymore. Even when I was cutting I didn't.
No, because you are not really saying anything. Just seems like you come on the forum to get pleasure criticizing. I mean, you don't log your food and you don't log your workout so it poses a question, at least to me. Why do you come here? Maybe it's you who should just go.
I am not using the scientific claims that dont exist now am I?
Very intelligent... rock on.
Yepwhat number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?
darkangel has been making all of these scientific claims backed by studies but is unable to post her sources of proof.
So she should just "go" then? Is that your "scientific" response?
Trust me when I say this. I give legit info or debate when I feel like it is worth it. My information that I argue can also be backed by scholarly sources. For example. My view of paleo is that it is backed by satiation such as the correlation of their food choices and the satiety index study.0 -
Telling someone to "just go", IMO is not being very helpful though... don't you think? Does not really foster a discussion of what works and what does not. What you just stated as your view on paleo IMO is really good... you should stick to more stuff like that. Listen, I am not trying to tell you or anyone for that matter what should or should not be said (who am I anyway to do that anyway).
Meh I go on the forums to help people that need help. I reached a point of nutrition that is lifelong sustainable where I do not need to couny my calories anymore. Even when I was cutting I didn't.
No, because you are not really saying anything. Just seems like you come on the forum to get pleasure criticizing. I mean, you don't log your food and you don't log your workout so it poses a question, at least to me. Why do you come here? Maybe it's you who should just go.
I am not using the scientific claims that dont exist now am I?
Very intelligent... rock on.
Yepwhat number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?
darkangel has been making all of these scientific claims backed by studies but is unable to post her sources of proof.
So she should just "go" then? Is that your "scientific" response?
Trust me when I say this. I give legit info or debate when I feel like it is worth it. My information that I argue can also be backed by scholarly sources. For example. My view of paleo is that it is backed by satiation such as the correlation of their food choices and the satiety index study.
Anyway, not sure if you had a chance to read this. What are your thoughts?
These are not my own words. This is from an interview between Chris Kresser and Mat Lalonde. I paraphrased to make it more concise. I think it is a fairy reasonable way to look at the whole paleo thing...
"There is really no such thing as a “paleo” diet because the foods are not available anymore. The best you can do it try to mimic it. So… a diet that’s meat, vegetables, tubers, and fruits… that’s what I call it.
Typical arguments go like this: Our ancestors and modern hunter-gatherers, who were virtually free of diseases of civilization, consumed a diet that was mostly devoid of grains, legumes, and dairy. People then make the invalid inference that consuming a diet mostly devoid of grains, legumes, and dairy will thus allow us to be free of diseases of civilization. Why is this invalid? Because it is observational and full of confounding factors (a variable that was not observed).
You can’t observe everything, so there’s almost always going to be, especially when it comes to human beings that are very complex and multivariate that live in a very complex and multivariate environment. You are never going to see everything. So observational epidemiology is great for formulating hypotheses and asking questions, but it doesn’t answer any questions. The same is true about this statement. You know, it’s just an observation. It’s just a correlation. You can’t say for sure that, yes, it is the case that if we eat like that we’re going to avoid the diseases of civilization, so you have to be very, very careful with that.
But there are some folks who are coming from different fields, and really all they’re grasping on is this evolutionary thing, and they don’t realize that all it is really at the end of the day is a great way to formulate hypotheses. We have to be careful not to assume that correlation equals causation. That said, it is reasonable to use that as a starting place, to do some further investigation and see whether or not there is any truth to it.
Another typical argument goes like this: We evolved over millions of years without consuming the foods that became readily available only after the advent of agriculture. Hence, we’re not adapted to these foods. But this assumes that a species isn’t adapted to a food because it’s never consumed it. And if you look at the evolutionary record, that’s incorrect. There are plenty of examples throughout evolution where species discover novel sources of food and thrive on them. Like humans and meat? Humans started out by eating fruits, plants and insects. Then they scavenged marrow from bones and also brains from skulls, and eventually became some of the meanest, baddest hunters on the planet.
Thus a better statement would be… There has been insufficient time and evolutionally pressure for complete adaptation to seed consumption to arise in homo-sapiens."0 -
So basically....some people don't digest grains well because of their genes. Huh...sounds EXACTLY like what I said.
No, it does not. You made a specific claim regarding the incidence rate, which is not only demonstrably false, but is in contradiction to our evolutionary history.
My "specific claim" was that more people are being diagnosed/discovering they have sensitivities or outright intolerances to grain lately. Said absolutely nothing about the actual incidence rate of these diseases because 1) it'd be impossible to actually know for sure since the sudden rise in them suggests more that they're only being diagnosed now rather than suddenly emerging and 2) my point has nothing to do with the actual incidence rate.
The point, which you've somehow missed several times now, is simply that there seems to be an increasing number of people discovering they are grain sensitive in some way. Whether the overall number of people who actually are grain sensitive is going up or down I neither know nor really care as it's not related to my point which was simply that some people don't tolerate grain well, and they're the ones who chose not to eat it. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that - something makes you feel sick, don't eat it!0 -
Telling someone to "just go", IMO is not being very helpful though... don't you think? Does not really foster a discussion of what works and what does not. What you just stated as your view on paleo IMO is really good... you should stick to more stuff like that. Listen, I am not trying to tell you or anyone for that matter what should or should not be said (who am I anyway to do that anyway).
Meh I go on the forums to help people that need help. I reached a point of nutrition that is lifelong sustainable where I do not need to couny my calories anymore. Even when I was cutting I didn't.
No, because you are not really saying anything. Just seems like you come on the forum to get pleasure criticizing. I mean, you don't log your food and you don't log your workout so it poses a question, at least to me. Why do you come here? Maybe it's you who should just go.
I am not using the scientific claims that dont exist now am I?
Very intelligent... rock on.
Yepwhat number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?
darkangel has been making all of these scientific claims backed by studies but is unable to post her sources of proof.
So she should just "go" then? Is that your "scientific" response?
Trust me when I say this. I give legit info or debate when I feel like it is worth it. My information that I argue can also be backed by scholarly sources. For example. My view of paleo is that it is backed by satiation such as the correlation of their food choices and the satiety index study.
Anyway, not sure if you had a chance to read this. What are your thoughts?
These are not my own words. This is from an interview between Chris Kresser and Mat Lalonde. I paraphrased to make it more concise. I think it is a fairy reasonable way to look at the whole paleo thing...
"There is really no such thing as a “paleo” diet because the foods are not available anymore. The best you can do it try to mimic it. So… a diet that’s meat, vegetables, tubers, and fruits… that’s what I call it.
Typical arguments go like this: Our ancestors and modern hunter-gatherers, who were virtually free of diseases of civilization, consumed a diet that was mostly devoid of grains, legumes, and dairy. People then make the invalid inference that consuming a diet mostly devoid of grains, legumes, and dairy will thus allow us to be free of diseases of civilization. Why is this invalid? Because it is observational and full of confounding factors (a variable that was not observed).
You can’t observe everything, so there’s almost always going to be, especially when it comes to human beings that are very complex and multivariate that live in a very complex and multivariate environment. You are never going to see everything. So observational epidemiology is great for formulating hypotheses and asking questions, but it doesn’t answer any questions. The same is true about this statement. You know, it’s just an observation. It’s just a correlation. You can’t say for sure that, yes, it is the case that if we eat like that we’re going to avoid the diseases of civilization, so you have to be very, very careful with that.
But there are some folks who are coming from different fields, and really all they’re grasping on is this evolutionary thing, and they don’t realize that all it is really at the end of the day is a great way to formulate hypotheses. We have to be careful not to assume that correlation equals causation. That said, it is reasonable to use that as a starting place, to do some further investigation and see whether or not there is any truth to it.
Another typical argument goes like this: We evolved over millions of years without consuming the foods that became readily available only after the advent of agriculture. Hence, we’re not adapted to these foods. But this assumes that a species isn’t adapted to a food because it’s never consumed it. And if you look at the evolutionary record, that’s incorrect. There are plenty of examples throughout evolution where species discover novel sources of food and thrive on them. Like humans and meat? Humans started out by eating fruits, plants and insects. Then they scavenged marrow from bones and also brains from skulls, and eventually became some of the meanest, baddest hunters on the planet.
Thus a better statement would be… There has been insufficient time and evolutionally pressure for complete adaptation to seed consumption to arise in homo-sapiens."
For the response of "just go" we have been asking the user repetitively for sources but they refuse to show sources, so thats why I gave up
oh I agree with your arguements you posted.
I simply meant the effectiveness of "paleo foods" and weight loss and I was talking about the satiation factor of the foods.0 -
[/quote]
I simply meant the effectiveness of "paleo foods" and weight loss and I was talking about the satiation factor of the foods.
[/quote]
It's funny because I think we have concluded that "paleo" foods really do not exist... at least not in this context.0 -
So basically....some people don't digest grains well because of their genes. Huh...sounds EXACTLY like what I said.
No, it does not. You made a specific claim regarding the incidence rate, which is not only demonstrably false, but is in contradiction to our evolutionary history.
My "specific claim" was that more people are being diagnosed/discovering they have sensitivities or outright intolerances to grain lately. Said absolutely nothing about the actual incidence rate of these diseases because 1) it'd be impossible to actually know for sure since the sudden rise in them suggests more that they're only being diagnosed now rather than suddenly emerging and 2) my point has nothing to do with the actual incidence rate.
The point, which you've somehow missed several times now, is simply that there seems to be an increasing number of people discovering they are grain sensitive in some way. Whether the overall number of people who actually are grain sensitive is going up or down I neither know nor really care as it's not related to my point which was simply that some people don't tolerate grain well, and they're the ones who chose not to eat it. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that - something makes you feel sick, don't eat it!
Going from eating a diet of overly processed foods to giving up grains AND eating whole natural foods increasing heatlh IN NO WAY means the person was grain sensitive to begin with. It means their body wanted some real food. Had they made the same dietary changes but included whole grains, most would likely have the same result.0 -
...it'd be impossible to actually know for sure since the sudden rise in them suggests...
There is no "sudden rise", so there is no suggestion....there seems to be an increasing number of people discovering they are grain sensitive in some way...
No, there aren't.
Feel free to share the studies demonstrating otherwise.0 -
To add to the Whole30 discussion, a typical outcome of someone doing the a whole30 for whatever reason (wanting to lose weight, wanting more energy...etc) is often a discovery that what they were eating was the cause of something like their migraines. They are 3 weeks into their 30 days and they suddenly realize that they haven't taken their "migraine medicine" in over 2 weeks. After they complete the reintroduction phase, they find out what causes their migraines in the first place. Quite liberating, if you ask me. Now they can treat the cause instead of take medicine that probably doesn't work real well or has side effects...
All I've got to say is Migraines don't always have a food trigger. My husband suffered from bad migraines that kept him out of work several times a month. We tried several medications ( only one worth anything was Maxalt ), getting his eyes examined, removing food etc. Turns out every eye doctor never though to check for astigmatism because he has better then 20/20 vision. Got him glasses for that and problem solved.0 -
thats why i put it in quotations
It's funny because I think we have concluded that "paleo" foods really do not exist... at least not in this context.0 -
thats why i put it in quotations
It's funny because I think we have concluded that "paleo" foods really do not exist... at least not in this context.
isn't that why we all... isn't that why we all...0 -
So basically....some people don't digest grains well because of their genes. Huh...sounds EXACTLY like what I said.
No, it does not. You made a specific claim regarding the incidence rate, which is not only demonstrably false, but is in contradiction to our evolutionary history.
My "specific claim" was that more people are being diagnosed/discovering they have sensitivities or outright intolerances to grain lately. Said absolutely nothing about the actual incidence rate of these diseases because 1) it'd be impossible to actually know for sure since the sudden rise in them suggests more that they're only being diagnosed now rather than suddenly emerging and 2) my point has nothing to do with the actual incidence rate.
The point, which you've somehow missed several times now, is simply that there seems to be an increasing number of people discovering they are grain sensitive in some way. Whether the overall number of people who actually are grain sensitive is going up or down I neither know nor really care as it's not related to my point which was simply that some people don't tolerate grain well, and they're the ones who chose not to eat it. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that - something makes you feel sick, don't eat it!
Going from eating a diet of overly processed foods to giving up grains AND eating whole natural foods increasing heatlh IN NO WAY means the person was grain sensitive to begin with. It means their body wanted some real food. Had they made the same dietary changes but included whole grains, most would likely have the same result.
I never said that being grain sensitive is the only possible explanation in those cases. Elimination diets control for those kinds of variables (as best they can) by eliminating all possible sensitivities for a set period of time (Whole30 for example does it for 30+ days), at which point you slowly reintroduce those kinds of foods one at a time to see which ones cause a negative reaction. I haven't even been saying you'll all 100% find that grains make you sick; I just said that some people have found that to be true.0 -
Going from eating a diet of overly processed foods to giving up grains AND eating whole natural foods increasing heatlh IN NO WAY means the person was grain sensitive to begin with. It means their body wanted some real food. Had they made the same dietary changes but included whole grains, most would likely have the same result.
Sure, that's just a correlation that could easily be explained away. But for me personally, trying to reintroduce whole grains leads to feeling bloated and sluggish. Ditto for my partner and my friends who have tried paleo. So why would we continue eating something that makes us feel crap?
The people who found it too hard to stick to... I'm really interested to know what kind of meals you were making? Its sometimes hard in terms of needing to be prepared for every meal, but as far as cravings/restrictions etc, I haven't found it to be an issue at all.0 -
...it'd be impossible to actually know for sure since the sudden rise in them suggests...
There is no "sudden rise", so there is no suggestion....there seems to be an increasing number of people discovering they are grain sensitive in some way...
No, there aren't.
Feel free to share the studies demonstrating otherwise.
Not a study because I don't have time to go finding your research for you, but this discusses some studies so if you're actually interested you'll go read those:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57483789-10391704/
Again, since my only point is that more people today believe they're grain sensitive than, say, 25 years ago, I'm not really sure why you're bothering to argue the point that is basically common knowledge at this point. The huge rise in gluten-free products for example is a pretty good indication that this is becoming more of a priority for people because more people are realizing they're sensitive (and some are just jumping on the fad food bandwagon as well)0 -
But you have plenty of time to post you opinions interminably while presenting nothing of substance to back it up. Maybe you should go find research for your own sake?...it'd be impossible to actually know for sure since the sudden rise in them suggests...
There is no "sudden rise", so there is no suggestion....there seems to be an increasing number of people discovering they are grain sensitive in some way...
No, there aren't.
Feel free to share the studies demonstrating otherwise.
Not a study because I don't have time to go finding your research for you,0 -
But you have plenty of time to post you opinions interminably while presenting nothing of substance to back it up. Maybe you should go find research for your own sake?...it'd be impossible to actually know for sure since the sudden rise in them suggests...
There is no "sudden rise", so there is no suggestion....there seems to be an increasing number of people discovering they are grain sensitive in some way...
No, there aren't.
Feel free to share the studies demonstrating otherwise.
Not a study because I don't have time to go finding your research for you,
I don't have to justify my life and time management for you, but here's a question for you - if you were genuinely interested in these things, why aren't you going and doing the research for your own sake? I've done this research before (obviously haven't bookmarked it all because I haven't felt the need to) so why would I waste my time just to prove a point on an internet forum instead of doing something that's actually worthwhile to my life, like keeping up with my law school work? As I've repeatedly said, if people were genuinely interested they'd look it up for themselves, while the people like you will continue to sit around on your high horse and feel superior despite your own hypocrisy. No one has yet shown any studies to contravene the things I've said either, might I point out.
If the only thing you can say against me is that I'm too busy to hand-feed you the research instead of letting you discover things for yourself, I'm perfectly fine with that.0 -
I have done the reasearch. None of what you've claimed has merit. You are also confused about how this works. The person making the claim bears the burden of proof. So basically, put up or shut up. Stop trying to play it off. Either you have it or you don't. Simple really and doesn't require lengthy and rambling posts.
But you have plenty of time to post you opinions interminably while presenting nothing of substance to back it up. Maybe you should go find research for your own sake?...it'd be impossible to actually know for sure since the sudden rise in them suggests...
There is no "sudden rise", so there is no suggestion....there seems to be an increasing number of people discovering they are grain sensitive in some way...
No, there aren't.
Feel free to share the studies demonstrating otherwise.
Not a study because I don't have time to go finding your research for you,
I don't have to justify my life and time management for you, but here's a question for you - if you were genuinely interested in these things, why aren't you going and doing the research for your own sake? I've done this research before (obviously haven't bookmarked it all because I haven't felt the need to) so why would I waste my time just to prove a point on an internet forum instead of doing something that's actually worthwhile to my life, like keeping up with my law school work? As I've repeatedly said, if people were genuinely interested they'd look it up for themselves, while the people like you will continue to sit around on your high horse and feel superior despite your own hypocrisy. No one has yet shown any studies to contravene the things I've said either, might I point out.
If the only thing you can say against me is that I'm too busy to hand-feed you the research instead of letting you discover things for yourself, I'm perfectly fine with that.0 -
It sure is a shame that so many people here are solely interested in picking apart and trying to discredit something that other people find success with.
'You lost weight, cured what you thought were chronic ailments, and are completely happy with this lifestyle? NO U R WRONG EAT UR POPTARTS FFS'0
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