DIE DIE DIE!!!
Options
Replies
-
Everything that Dr. Oz has told us...0
-
That artificial sweetener is perfectly fine, or good for you as some think.
This is not a myth.
Thank you0 -
"Big lifters are all dumb"
The truth is, big lifters have elicited more adaptation through their training stimulus than all the little people who look down their noses at us. I don't squat so much weight because I'm dumb, I squat so much because I'm training SMARTER than everyone else.
You squat so much because you are a big dude. That's all!0 -
You perceived it as *****y... the comment didn't attack you as a person, it attacked an idea you put forward. Your comment was an ad hominem attack, i.e. directed at a person. That makes a huge difference.
I perceived it as such based on the abrasive context... it doesn't make a huge difference when the content of the "attack on a belief" is condescending to the person who suggested it... and the "THOSE people" comment wasn't referring a those who disagree, it was referring to the people that will automatically post condescending replies to someone they disagree with....
Sigh.
Look. If the idea was that your metabolism changed while you were sleeping, the advice would be "wait for an hour before you go to sleep" just like the old swimming myth.
The reality is that it takes between 6 and 8 hours for your food to digest in your stomach and small intestine. This means that not eating after 6 would mean that you would need to wait until midnight or 2 am to go to sleep. I don't know about you, but I go to bed between 10:30 and 11.
It's about 33 to 55 hours for it to go from consumption to elimination.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340
The 50 pounds I've lost says that meal timing is irrelevant.
........plus the fact that if it was bad to eat within a certain number of hours before sleeping, then we'd better all get into time machines and warn all the Homo erectuses about that....... though I think it might be a bit difficult to explain the concept of "8pm" to a Homo erectus....
ETA: Homo erectus mentioned twice in one thread for two different reasons... BINGO! :drinker: ..... next time I'm going for a hattrick!!
That would be really fun. Let's do it!!!
After we tell the Homo Erectus about raspberry ketones, can we go back and stand on the edge of the Tethys sea and watch the first amphibious animals skitter about?0 -
I just remembered something.
The myth that cauliflower replaces everything. No. It doesn't. Cauliflower smells like farts and feels like eating sand. Plus it tastes yuck.
No no no no no no no.
0 -
The alternate ways of credibly supporting one's arguments on MFP include
*presence of ripped abs
*quantity of punctuation
*accurate spelling and grammar
*level of butthurt
However, to gain the most respect, links to peer reviewed articles are probably your best bet.
I would be much more inclined to have a debate and justify my reasoning to you, if you weren't such condescending person. You are the person people don't like to talk to because instead of having an adult conversation you attempt to make people feel inferior by talking down to them... So you are not worth my time. If you were more reasonable and less _____ then I would be happy to share my argument with you.0 -
Long distance running is the best form of cardio. No!0
-
The standard BMI calculator tells me that as a 6'0" male that I need to look like an Auschwitz prisoner at 135-150 lbs to have a "normal" body. Um, sorry pal, that ain't normal, and that ain't healthy. I looked like a stick in high school and I was 158 lbs.
As a young adult I bicycled 50 miles a day, was in perfect health, and weighed 185 lbs, which is "overweight" according to the BMI calculator. I don't know who came up with that garbage, but it is not based on any reality for a person with normal musculature. I believe the standard BMI calculator is deceiving people into losing both fat and muscle that is in fact healthy for them.
^ This.
I heard that the BMI chart was made in like 1860 in a tiny town in Sweden or something, and just essentially categorized the town's occupants. I HATE the BMI chart... I honestly think it has little relevance in today's society.0 -
The standard BMI calculator tells me that as a 6'0" male that I need to look like an Auschwitz prisoner at 135-150 lbs to have a "normal" body. Um, sorry pal, that ain't normal, and that ain't healthy. I looked like a stick in high school and I was 158 lbs.
As a young adult I bicycled 50 miles a day, was in perfect health, and weighed 185 lbs, which is "overweight" according to the BMI calculator. I don't know who came up with that garbage, but it is not based on any reality for a person with normal musculature. I believe the standard BMI calculator is deceiving people into losing both fat and muscle that is in fact healthy for them.
^ This.
I heard that the BMI chart was made in like 1860 in a tiny town in Sweden or something, and just essentially categorized the town's occupants. I HATE the BMI chart... I honestly think it has little relevance in today's society.
It doesn't. Health professionals are moving toward waist measurement as the main health indicator.0 -
The alternate ways of credibly supporting one's arguments on MFP include
*presence of ripped abs
*quantity of punctuation
*accurate spelling and grammar
*level of butthurt
However, to gain the most respect, links to peer reviewed articles are probably your best bet.
I would be much more inclined to have a debate and justify my reasoning to you, if you weren't such condescending person. You are the person people don't like to talk to because instead of having an adult conversation you attempt to make people feel inferior by talking down to them... So you are not worth my time. If you were more reasonable and less _____ then I would be happy to share my argument with you.
your perception is off. You need to recalibrate your snark detector, because it's over-sensitive. Tone of voice does not come across on the internet, you might want to try reading her posts in a more cheerful, happy-go-lucky tone of voice.
Also, again, you're replying with ad hominem attacks, which isn't going to endear you to anyone. On this site, that kind of thing usually unleashes a tornado of kitty gifs.0 -
The alternate ways of credibly supporting one's arguments on MFP include
*presence of ripped abs
*quantity of punctuation
*accurate spelling and grammar
*level of butthurt
However, to gain the most respect, links to peer reviewed articles are probably your best bet.
I would be much more inclined to have a debate and justify my reasoning to you, if you weren't such condescending person. You are the person people don't like to talk to because instead of having an adult conversation you attempt to make people feel inferior by talking down to them... So you are not worth my time. If you weren't more reasonable and less _____ then I would be happy to share my argument with you.
You remind me of a friend I had when I was 10. She always had the most magnificent toys that she couldn't show me either because of some exotic reason or because of a personal failing of mine. "I was going to show you, but you were two minutes late."
I made my point and backed it up. There is a reason why the saying is "The truth will prevail."
Evidence is evidence is evidence, no matter the personality of the person delivering it.0 -
You remind me of a friend I had when I was 10. She always had the most magnificent toys that she couldn't show me either because of some exotic reason or because of a personal failing of mine. "I was going to show you, but you were two minutes late."
I made my point and backed it up. There is a reason why the saying is "The truth will prevail."
Evidence is evidence is evidence, no matter the personality of the person delivering it.
Good for you... enjoy a cookie.0 -
You remind me of a friend I had when I was 10. She always had the most magnificent toys that she couldn't show me either because of some exotic reason or because of a personal failing of mine. "I was going to show you, but you were two minutes late."
I made my point and backed it up. There is a reason why the saying is "The truth will prevail."
Evidence is evidence is evidence, no matter the personality of the person delivering it.
So I can at least be semi-humble in the sense that you provided information I had not seen and what is seemingly legitimate evidence. BUT, I stand firm that the way you approach it is not a great way to get people to listen to you. When you take a condescending route to explaining new information to people, it automatically makes people look at you negatively and like an egotistical "know-it-all." But COOL you proved your point with a link... like I said, enjoy a cookie...0 -
your perception is off. You need to recalibrate your snark detector, because it's over-sensitive. Tone of voice does not come across on the internet, you might want to try reading her posts in a more cheerful, happy-go-lucky tone of voice.
Also, again, you're replying with ad hominem attacks, which isn't going to endear you to anyone. On this site, that kind of thing usually unleashes a tornado of kitty gifs.
Right, as I did not suggest you could read tone, it is the content that suggests that it is condescending. So you are telling me that ragging on grammar, spelling, and overuse of punctuation isn't ad hominem? But hey, you can see ONE side... good for you.0 -
No eating after 8p.m.
Calories can't tell time.
^^ THAT ONE!^^0 -
You perceived it as *****y... the comment didn't attack you as a person, it attacked an idea you put forward. Your comment was an ad hominem attack, i.e. directed at a person. That makes a huge difference.
I perceived it as such based on the abrasive context... it doesn't make a huge difference when the content of the "attack on a belief" is condescending to the person who suggested it... and the "THOSE people" comment wasn't referring a those who disagree, it was referring to the people that will automatically post condescending replies to someone they disagree with....
Sigh.
Look. If the idea was that your metabolism changed while you were sleeping, the advice would be "wait for an hour before you go to sleep" just like the old swimming myth.
The reality is that it takes between 6 and 8 hours for your food to digest in your stomach and small intestine. This means that not eating after 6 would mean that you would need to wait until midnight or 2 am to go to sleep. I don't know about you, but I go to bed between 10:30 and 11.
It's about 33 to 55 hours for it to go from consumption to elimination.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340
The 50 pounds I've lost says that meal timing is irrelevant.
........plus the fact that if it was bad to eat within a certain number of hours before sleeping, then we'd better all get into time machines and warn all the Homo erectuses about that....... though I think it might be a bit difficult to explain the concept of "8pm" to a Homo erectus....
ETA: Homo erectus mentioned twice in one thread for two different reasons... BINGO! :drinker: ..... next time I'm going for a hattrick!!
That would be really fun. Let's do it!!!
After we tell the Homo Erectus about raspberry ketones, can we go back and stand on the edge of the Tethys sea and watch the first amphibious animals skitter about?
I can't even begin to imagine all the things I'd want to go an observe if I had a time machine....0 -
Did someone say... kitty gifs?
0 -
your perception is off. You need to recalibrate your snark detector, because it's over-sensitive. Tone of voice does not come across on the internet, you might want to try reading her posts in a more cheerful, happy-go-lucky tone of voice.
Also, again, you're replying with ad hominem attacks, which isn't going to endear you to anyone. On this site, that kind of thing usually unleashes a tornado of kitty gifs.
Right, as I did not suggest you could read tone, it is the content that suggests that it is condescending. So you are telling me that ragging on grammar, spelling, and overuse of punctuation isn't ad hominem? But hey, you can see ONE side... good for you.
Who was I ad homineming?
I was humorously commenting on the strategies I've seen as an 18 month member of this glorious site and contrasting them with the power of providing links to research.0 -
your perception is off. You need to recalibrate your snark detector, because it's over-sensitive. Tone of voice does not come across on the internet, you might want to try reading her posts in a more cheerful, happy-go-lucky tone of voice.
Also, again, you're replying with ad hominem attacks, which isn't going to endear you to anyone. On this site, that kind of thing usually unleashes a tornado of kitty gifs.
Right, as I did not suggest you could read tone, it is the content that suggests that it is condescending. So you are telling me that ragging on grammar, spelling, and overuse of punctuation isn't ad hominem? But hey, you can see ONE side... good for you.
The comment she made about punctuation and grammar wasn't directed at you, it was a joke about this forum in general. Look I'm trying to give you advice here. I really think you overreacted to her post and it came across that you were butthurt (i.e. offended because someone disagreed with you). A better reaction would have been to simply back up what you what you were saying, rather than taking the whole thing personally and overreacting to it.0 -
You remind me of a friend I had when I was 10. She always had the most magnificent toys that she couldn't show me either because of some exotic reason or because of a personal failing of mine. "I was going to show you, but you were two minutes late."
I made my point and backed it up. There is a reason why the saying is "The truth will prevail."
Evidence is evidence is evidence, no matter the personality of the person delivering it.
So I can at least be semi-humble in the sense that you provided information I had not seen and what is seemingly legitimate evidence. BUT, I stand firm that the way you approach it is not a great way to get people to listen to you. When you take a condescending route to explaining new information to people, it automatically makes people look at you negatively and like an egotistical "know-it-all." But COOL you proved your point with a link... like I said, enjoy a cookie...
I was waiting for you to provide support for your contention before I ate my cookie, but I guess I'll go ahead and enjoy it.
I wasn't planning on taking a nap or anything, so I guess I'll be good.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions