A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Replies
-
It's much more detailed than that. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different chemical reactions involved. Far more than simply burning by fire would be.
Look at the difference between the mere binding of fructose and glucose in both sucrose and HFCS. The fructose are unbound in HFCS whereas they are bound to glucose in sucrose. So, it actually takes on more step to unbind them in sucrose -- one of the reasons some posit that HFCS has a different reaction on weight gain in the body (though the mechanism is far from understood). And that's a difference in a extremely similar molecule. You talk about different molecules in the same macro and there is great variation, even more so between different macros.
Yeah...I know....biochemist here. You are just waving the flag of "complicated" to say that anything is possible and therefore your version of reality is correct. That is not hard to do but it also holds no value or informational content. Saying to someone "it is to complicated to understand, so here is exactly how it works" is clearly flawed.
Fact is though that although the actual network of metabolic interactions is very complex the general process is quite simple. Hydrocarbons are converted to water and carbon dioxide yielding energy in the form of chemical bonds which can be used to perform work.
Careful about advertising your credentials here. People go nuts about it (or at least did when I did).
I'm not trying to obscure with complexity, but I think it's important to acknowledge it's existence -- especially because sometimes it becomes a very important factor (like with insulin resistance). The fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of US adults are obese or overweight. There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
And, I know it's comforting to think that everything is within our control, but sometimes it's not. Or that control is hidden or obscured by other interests (like adding things to certain foods that increase appetite or decrease satiety so that people will buy/eat more so that some companies will make more money). Getting to those underlying issues -- whether medical or otherwise -- is important. Dismissing it all as pretty much the same is also a disservice.0 -
In for quote pyramid.
To be honest, I have had this disorder for a very long time and have never been obese. I have probably been at the high end of healthy to slightly overweight since puberty. During my high school years I was on the track team, exercising constantly and I could never lose weight. I barely ate. It wasn't that I wanted to be skinny, I just wanted to be thinner.and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.
As for your efficiency comment if you are saying your BMR is much LOWER than expected that means your body is actually EXTREMELY efficient, much more so than the average population. So I am not sure why you are saying operating at low efficiency.
what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.
Then exercise more or lose weight at a slower rate, I guess I don't get it. Nothing says you have to lose weight based solely on your BMR nor do you have to lose weight at the rate of 1 pound per week. Nothing here makes CICO wrong or weight loss impossible so I guess what is the point here...that it is hard? Yeah of course it is hard.
Calculators tell me that I maintain at 3000 calories a day, but I don't...I maintain at more like 2500 calories a day. So what do I do about that? Well I adjust to what my body actually does and go off of that and I ignore the calculators. The calculators are based on population averages and assumptions. Just because the calculator says I could be eating 500 calories more when I found that I can't doesn't make me mope about it though nor does it make me think there is something wrong with me.
I went to the Dr. and no one could tell me what was wrong. It wasn't until fertility issues became a problem that I was diagnosed. This was mostly because we moved to a metropolitan area that had specialists who could diagnose and treat me. From what I've read, I am actually pretty lucky that I have managed to stay in a healthy bmi range as most people who have PCOS can't. There is a lot more information out there now though. In the 80's and 90's when I was suffering, information about diets and disorders were not as readily available.
I guess my point is that it's easy to point your finger at people and say it's their fault, but I think it can be rather discouraging, at least it was to me, when people tell you it's in your head or it's in your control. When your body doesn't work right it really isn't your fault. Especially, when no one has told you what you can do to fix it. I have finally been able to lose some of the 20 lbs that has been clinging to me with medical intervention and a low carb approach.
But, for people who are undiagnosed the frustration and pointlessness that is felt when you are exercising and barely eating and still the scale won't move, telling them it's their fault is just cruel and damaging.
Thank you, and congrats on your success despite your hurdle. I think the main issue IMO is the way people say things sometimes on here. It seems more of pointing a finger than trying to help. Also lumping everyone as " fatties" just making excuses. Some of us are determined DESPITE difficulties we may have to overcome. Telling people they are incapable of weighing measuring and logging accurately is insulting. Granted there are those that are not weighting and should be told to go here first BUT if this is not the issue being told you're a fat liar isn't constructive.
Exaggerating what people say to the point of insult isn't helpful either. I certainly never called anyone a "fat liar".
I think she was more describing her own experiences with doctors and others on the boards than you in particular Aaron_K123. Though I definitely have seen people say that very same thing to others on these boards.
Please provide examples of these instances where the person saying "you're a fat liar" was not outright trolling. I have been here 3 years and never once have seen a poster respond to a query in such a way.
I've definitely seen such disrespectful comments and not more than a handful of times. The other poster has had similar experiences. Are you calling us liars?
Catch-22!0 -
You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trollingEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.0 -
Everyone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
Can you tell us more...I haven't heard such a drastic example before. Is it possible that your TDEE is somewhat off? After all, you look pretty darn muscular so I'd assume that you'd have a higher than normal TDEE. Or have you had it measured by other means?
Also, congrats on the stats -- that is quite impressive.0 -
You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trollingEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
Eric, I log everything that goes into my mouth. I don't have a calorie budget. I have a carb budget. I'm not trolling so quit looking for ****. You always seem to deny what others have found successful. You are the ****ing troll.0 -
I've definitely seen such disrespectful comments and not more than a handful of times. The other poster has had similar experiences. Are you calling us liars?
The barber shaves everyone in the town who does not shave himself.0 -
Why is that the more....extravagant...claims always seem to come from people with closed diaries?0
-
It's much more detailed than that. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different chemical reactions involved. Far more than simply burning by fire would be.
Look at the difference between the mere binding of fructose and glucose in both sucrose and HFCS. The fructose are unbound in HFCS whereas they are bound to glucose in sucrose. So, it actually takes on more step to unbind them in sucrose -- one of the reasons some posit that HFCS has a different reaction on weight gain in the body (though the mechanism is far from understood). And that's a difference in a extremely similar molecule. You talk about different molecules in the same macro and there is great variation, even more so between different macros.
Yeah...I know....biochemist here. You are just waving the flag of "complicated" to say that anything is possible and therefore your version of reality is correct. That is not hard to do but it also holds no value or informational content. Saying to someone "it is to complicated to understand, so here is exactly how it works" is clearly flawed.
Fact is though that although the actual network of metabolic interactions is very complex the general process is quite simple. Hydrocarbons are converted to water and carbon dioxide yielding energy in the form of chemical bonds which can be used to perform work.
Careful about advertising your credentials here. People go nuts about it (or at least did when I did).
I'm not trying to obscure with complexity, but I think it's important to acknowledge it's existence -- especially because sometimes it becomes a very important factor (like with insulin resistance). The fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of US adults are obese or overweight. There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
And, I know it's comforting to think that everything is within our control, but sometimes it's not. Or that control is hidden or obscured by other interests (like adding things to certain foods that increase appetite or decrease satiety so that people will buy/eat more so that some companies will make more money). Getting to those underlying issues -- whether medical or otherwise -- is important. Dismissing it all as pretty much the same is also a disservice.
Yeah, "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy; besides, Internet credentials are typically worth the time it takes to type them out.
Now, if you provided something verifiable, but no one seems to want to do that...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
snipThank you, and congrats on your success despite your hurdle. I think the main issue IMO is the way people say things sometimes on here. It seems more of pointing a finger than trying to help. Also lumping everyone as " fatties" just making excuses. Some of us are determined DESPITE difficulties we may have to overcome. Telling people they are incapable of weighing measuring and logging accurately is insulting. Granted there are those that are not weighting and should be told to go here first BUT if this is not the issue being told you're a fat liar isn't constructive.Exaggerating what people say to the point of insult isn't helpful either. I certainly never called anyone a "fat liar".
I think she was more describing her own experiences with doctors and others on the boards than you in particular Aaron_K123. Though I definitely have seen people say that very same thing to others on these boards.Please provide examples of these instances where the person saying "you're a fat liar" was not outright trolling. I have been here 3 years and never once have seen a poster respond to a query in such a way.I've definitely seen such disrespectful comments and not more than a handful of times. The other poster has had similar experiences. Are you calling us liars?Catch-22!
Yeah nice try L....I didn't think you had a rebuttal for my question.
BTW, the most common advice I see here is along the lines of "you are likely not measuring your intake and exercise properly, which is probably the reason you're not losing weight at the rate you desire", which is not remotely the same as calling someone a fat liar. But again, nice try.
Edit: Quote failures...ahh F it.
Well, it was an incredibly asinine thing to ask for. Who keeps an index of insults in various MFP threads? That's ridiculous. Ask for less ridiculous things and maybe we can talk.
If you don't think such insults happen on MFP, I think you're either in denial or lack considerable reading comprehension. It's rare I don't see a thread with some such insult.
My reading comprehension is fine. I didn't say they never happened. I have seen it happen. But if it happened with as much frequency as you suggest, you'd actually be able to produce concrete examples of such instances and not vague allusions to them.
But you'd know more about insults and petty behaviour than I do.
As usual, stay classy.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Who's winning ?
I really need to know so I can change my diet to the most popular one. Lmao0 -
Lol is that why you sent me a friend request a few months back?
You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trollingEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
Eric, I log everything that goes into my mouth. I don't have a calorie budget. I have a carb budget. I'm not trolling so quit looking for ****. You always seem to deny what others have found successful. You are the ****ing troll.0 -
There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
I don't think it is coincidence either, I just think you have your cause and effect relationship backwards.0 -
If you don't count calories, how do you know you are eating 4,000 calories a day? Or, is that just a very rough estimate because you are eating "as much as you want'" and it feels like an awful lot of food? Well, my guess is that estimation is over by about a thousand or so.Everyone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
If you are maintaining your weight eating whatever your true calorie intake is, then that's a good thing. You've found your balance and the type of dietary plan that works for you. Perhaps eating less carbs helps you feel satiated, or provides some other healthy benefit, but there is nothing special with low carb as far as calories in/calories out goes.
Low carb is the right plan for the person who chooses it, but it's not the right dietary plan for everyone. There is nothing magical in low carb, except for the magic a person gives it.
And, this comes from someone who believes in choosing your own dietary plan with the caveat that no diet is going to work if you eat over your calorie allowance, and any diet will work if you eat less than your calorie allowance.0 -
It's much more detailed than that. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different chemical reactions involved. Far more than simply burning by fire would be.
Look at the difference between the mere binding of fructose and glucose in both sucrose and HFCS. The fructose are unbound in HFCS whereas they are bound to glucose in sucrose. So, it actually takes on more step to unbind them in sucrose -- one of the reasons some posit that HFCS has a different reaction on weight gain in the body (though the mechanism is far from understood). And that's a difference in a extremely similar molecule. You talk about different molecules in the same macro and there is great variation, even more so between different macros.
Yeah...I know....biochemist here. You are just waving the flag of "complicated" to say that anything is possible and therefore your version of reality is correct. That is not hard to do but it also holds no value or informational content. Saying to someone "it is to complicated to understand, so here is exactly how it works" is clearly flawed.
Fact is though that although the actual network of metabolic interactions is very complex the general process is quite simple. Hydrocarbons are converted to water and carbon dioxide yielding energy in the form of chemical bonds which can be used to perform work.
Careful about advertising your credentials here. People go nuts about it (or at least did when I did).
I'm not trying to obscure with complexity, but I think it's important to acknowledge it's existence -- especially because sometimes it becomes a very important factor (like with insulin resistance). The fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of US adults are obese or overweight. There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
And, I know it's comforting to think that everything is within our control, but sometimes it's not. Or that control is hidden or obscured by other interests (like adding things to certain foods that increase appetite or decrease satiety so that people will buy/eat more so that some companies will make more money). Getting to those underlying issues -- whether medical or otherwise -- is important. Dismissing it all as pretty much the same is also a disservice.
Yeah, "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy; besides, Internet credentials are typically worth the time it takes to type them out.
Now, if you provided something verifiable, but no one seems to want to do that...
<eyeroll> I am waiting with baited breath for the explanation as to how mentioning your credentials is automatically an appeal to authority fallacy. I mentioned my training simply to state to the person with whom I was conversing that there was no reason to get long winded about biochemistry as I was fairly familiar with it already. I did not use the mention of that to then make some claim that you were supposed to believe simply due to my credential...which would be the fallacy.0 -
Gee, I'm in to watch. :bigsmile:Who's winning ?
I really need to know so I can change my diet to the most popular one. Lmao
0 -
The cause of PCOS is not understood. There are many different theories, some of which are diet, hormonal imbalance, genetics, environmental, the list goes on and on. But saying it is caused by obesity doesn't make sense because so many people with PCOS are outside of that parameter. I have never been obese and yet I am insulin resistant and have PCOS.
One theory has to do with the body producing too much testosterone. (My endocrinologist believes it to be genetically caused overproduction of testosterone).
A low carb diet is shown to reduce the level of testosterone produced by PCOS women. I am not going to site studies unless someone is interested, however there are a plethora of studies showing this relationship. The decrease in testosterone increases insulin sensitivity. I'm sure there is much more to it than that, but in a nutshell that is why it works. For some reason it all works differently for men. There doesn't seem to be as much research, but what I did find out is that low carb still increases insulin sensitivity but by increasing testosterone production. (At least that's how I understood it. I'm used to psychological or educational studies! Not hormonal studies.)0 -
It's much more detailed than that. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different chemical reactions involved. Far more than simply burning by fire would be.
Look at the difference between the mere binding of fructose and glucose in both sucrose and HFCS. The fructose are unbound in HFCS whereas they are bound to glucose in sucrose. So, it actually takes on more step to unbind them in sucrose -- one of the reasons some posit that HFCS has a different reaction on weight gain in the body (though the mechanism is far from understood). And that's a difference in a extremely similar molecule. You talk about different molecules in the same macro and there is great variation, even more so between different macros.
Yeah...I know....biochemist here. You are just waving the flag of "complicated" to say that anything is possible and therefore your version of reality is correct. That is not hard to do but it also holds no value or informational content. Saying to someone "it is to complicated to understand, so here is exactly how it works" is clearly flawed.
Fact is though that although the actual network of metabolic interactions is very complex the general process is quite simple. Hydrocarbons are converted to water and carbon dioxide yielding energy in the form of chemical bonds which can be used to perform work.
Careful about advertising your credentials here. People go nuts about it (or at least did when I did).
I'm not trying to obscure with complexity, but I think it's important to acknowledge it's existence -- especially because sometimes it becomes a very important factor (like with insulin resistance). The fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of US adults are obese or overweight. There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
And, I know it's comforting to think that everything is within our control, but sometimes it's not. Or that control is hidden or obscured by other interests (like adding things to certain foods that increase appetite or decrease satiety so that people will buy/eat more so that some companies will make more money). Getting to those underlying issues -- whether medical or otherwise -- is important. Dismissing it all as pretty much the same is also a disservice.
Yeah, "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy; besides, Internet credentials are typically worth the time it takes to type them out.
Now, if you provided something verifiable, but no one seems to want to do that...
<eyeroll> I am waiting with baited breath for the explanation as to how mentioning your credentials is automatically an appeal to authority fallacy. I mentioned my training simply to state to the person with whom I was conversing that there was no reason to get long winded about biochemistry as I was fairly familiar with it already. I did not use the mention of that to then make some claim that you were supposed to believe simply due to my credential...which would be the fallacy.
I wasn't referring to you (the posters in this forum appear to have a particular problem with identifying the target of a comment...apparently, quoting the source isn't sufficient). Perhaps you are hyper-sensitive, due to your own credential slinging.
And yes, I know where the fallacy lies. Can you give me a plausible reason to mention one's "credentials" unbidden, unless it is to imply an expertise in the subject at hand?
ETA - Actually, I think I was referring to you, albeit indirectly from the comment from another poster. So, I can understand your outrage.0 -
It's much more detailed than that. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different chemical reactions involved. Far more than simply burning by fire would be.
Look at the difference between the mere binding of fructose and glucose in both sucrose and HFCS. The fructose are unbound in HFCS whereas they are bound to glucose in sucrose. So, it actually takes on more step to unbind them in sucrose -- one of the reasons some posit that HFCS has a different reaction on weight gain in the body (though the mechanism is far from understood). And that's a difference in a extremely similar molecule. You talk about different molecules in the same macro and there is great variation, even more so between different macros.
Yeah...I know....biochemist here. You are just waving the flag of "complicated" to say that anything is possible and therefore your version of reality is correct. That is not hard to do but it also holds no value or informational content. Saying to someone "it is to complicated to understand, so here is exactly how it works" is clearly flawed.
Fact is though that although the actual network of metabolic interactions is very complex the general process is quite simple. Hydrocarbons are converted to water and carbon dioxide yielding energy in the form of chemical bonds which can be used to perform work.
Careful about advertising your credentials here. People go nuts about it (or at least did when I did).
I'm not trying to obscure with complexity, but I think it's important to acknowledge it's existence -- especially because sometimes it becomes a very important factor (like with insulin resistance). The fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of US adults are obese or overweight. There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
And, I know it's comforting to think that everything is within our control, but sometimes it's not. Or that control is hidden or obscured by other interests (like adding things to certain foods that increase appetite or decrease satiety so that people will buy/eat more so that some companies will make more money). Getting to those underlying issues -- whether medical or otherwise -- is important. Dismissing it all as pretty much the same is also a disservice.
Yeah, "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy; besides, Internet credentials are typically worth the time it takes to type them out.
Now, if you provided something verifiable, but no one seems to want to do that...
<eyeroll> I am waiting with baited breath for the explanation as to how mentioning your credentials is automatically an appeal to authority fallacy. I mentioned my training simply to state to the person with whom I was conversing that there was no reason to get long winded about biochemistry as I was fairly familiar with it already. I did not use the mention of that to then make some claim that you were supposed to believe simply due to my credential...which would be the fallacy.
I wasn't referring to you (the posters in this forum appear to have a particular problem with identifying the target of a comment...apparently, quoting the source isn't sufficient). Perhaps you are hyper-sensitive, due to your own credential slinging.
And yes, I know where the fallacy lies. Can you give me a plausible reason to mention one's "credentials" unbidden, unless it is to imply an expertise in the subject at hand?
You mean a plausible reason other than the reason I gave in the above quoted text? As for being overly sensitive typically the hypersensitive become hurt and angry or defensive...this is not usually exhibited by an eyeroll. As for why I might have thought you were referring to me personally I have no idea why I would have gotten that impression. But perhaps the hypersensitive are also prone to sarcasm.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Low carb is magic. I am surprised that poster only limits himself to 4000 calories a day. I mean if you don't gain weight or bodyfat eating low carb, why not eat 8000 or 10,000 cals a day. I know I would. /sarcasm
If you don't count calories, how do you know you are eating 4,000 calories a day? Or, is that just a very rough estimate because you are eating "as much as you want'" and it feels like an awful lot of food? Well, my guess is that estimation is over by about a thousand or so.Everyone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
If you are maintaining your weight eating whatever your true calorie intake is, then that's a good thing. You've found your balance and the type of dietary plan that works for you. Perhaps eating less carbs helps you feel satiated, or provides some other healthy benefit, but there is nothing special with low carb as far as calories in/calories out goes.
Low carb is the right plan for the person who chooses it, but it's not the right dietary plan for everyone. There is nothing magical in low carb, except for the magic a person gives it.
And, this comes from someone who believes in choosing your own dietary plan with the caveat that no diet is going to work if you eat over your calorie allowance, and any diet will work if you eat less than your calorie allowance.0 -
Gee, I'm in to watch. :bigsmile:Who's winning ?
I really need to know so I can change my diet to the most popular one. Lmao
Scoot over, please.
0 -
Trolling? When did that word change meaning?
You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trollingEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.0 -
deleted.0
-
Lol is that why you sent me a friend request a few months back?
You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trollingEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
Eric, I log everything that goes into my mouth. I don't have a calorie budget. I have a carb budget. I'm not trolling so quit looking for ****. You always seem to deny what others have found successful. You are the ****ing troll.
Yeah I did before I realized you disagreed with virtually everybody who posted contrarion views to CICO. LOL. Plus, dude, change your pic or don't you have any other lucky pics?0 -
10% bfEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
4000+ calories is a deficit
2900 TDEE
Defies physics
Almost 50 years old
Definitely not a troll. Right.
LOL. Maybe the government needs to experiment on my alien body. My pic was taken two weeks ago. I will be 50 in November. The MFP forums have got to be the most thick headed cultish people on earth. Criticize all you want but it won't change the fact that I"m 10% body fat eating without a deficit. I feel sorry for you.0 -
10% bfEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
4000+ calories is a deficit
2900 TDEE
Defies physics
Almost 50 years old
Definitely not a troll. Right.
LOL. Maybe the government needs to experiment on my alien body. My pic was taken two weeks ago. I will be 50 in November so f you. The MFP forums have got to be the most thick headed cultish people on earth. Criticize all you want but it won't change the fact that I"m 10% body fat eating without a deficit. I feel sorry for you.
No it's us low carb people who are cultish, didn't you know?0 -
That's cool. I'm fine with low-carb if that works for people. Some people do better with fewer carbs. Personally, though, it's easier for ME to eat what I want and eat within a calorie goal than it is to cut out my favorite foods. (It's basically how I've maintained over the years as I've aged.) It needs to be sustainable and life-long for me, and that means plenty of pasta to keep me sane. I've never had weight problems and I've always eaten plenty of carbs. Do what works for YOU! :flowerforyou:
I agree we are all different and one diet definitely does not work for all. However, I do believe (and know for a fact) that not all calories are created equal. But if counting calories works for you then who cares what some NYT article says!
how can it be a fact if it is not a fact?
A calorie is just a unit of energy. Therefore they are all the same in that regards.
All diets work, If it puts you in a caloric deficit.
I don't care what you eat, i don't care if you count calories, It means nothing to me.
I just find it ridiculous when people tote falsities as facts, and promote the diet they are on as the best diet, or only diet.
I'm not promoting any kind of diet. All I'm saying is that not all calories are created equal. And yes that's a fact. You can't argue that 100 calories of cookies has the same effect to your body as 100 calories of celery would.
The calories have the same effect: they supply energy
The macro breakdown is different - there is a lot more protein and fat in the cookies.
The cookies would also supply more micronutrients.0 -
10% bfEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
4000+ calories is a deficit
2900 TDEE
Defies physics
Almost 50 years old
Definitely not a troll. Right.
LOL. Maybe the government needs to experiment on my alien body. My pic was taken two weeks ago. I will be 50 in November so f you. The MFP forums have got to be the most thick headed cultish people on earth. Criticize all you want but it won't change the fact that I"m 10% body fat eating without a deficit. I feel sorry for you.
I think pandas do something similar.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions