A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

Aaron_K123

Some of these people simply don't understand basic (and not so basic) biology. When you have a metabolic disorder, your body isn't doing what it's supposed to, and the extent of its deviation from the norm can vary greatly. So, if someone with a metabolic disorder eats food, it isn't metabolized in the same way. They can get a lot less of the energy that one usually would -- you see this in insulin resistance for example. Rather than using the food for energy, they get to use only part of it and part of it gets stored as fat.

That makes no sense. If someone had a metabolic disorder that caused them to get considerably less energy from consumed food and they had to eat more as a result that would not result in excess fat storage. That does not follow at all. If someone had an inefficient metabolism then their body would have to process MORE food to yield the same amount of energy and in processing it utilize it...not store it. A person with an inneficient metabolism like the one you describe would struggle to eat enough to not be underweight, they wouldn't struggle with being overweight.

You should read up on how insulin resistance works. Because that's exactly what happens effectively.

The cells are insulin resistant. They don't allow the energy to enter them. The pancreas excretes more insulin to compensate. The energy moves into the cells. What isn't used at that time is stored as fat. Blood glucose drops. Hunger ensues. Cycle continues...

Explain to me how someone with an inneficient metabolism (meaning they yield less energy per calorie consumed) would gain fat as a result of that inefficiency. That does not follow. You seem to be saying that someone with an inefficient metabolism not only eats more but eats so much more that they not only compensate for their inneficient metabolism but overshoot to the point that they gain weight. Why? Apparently because "they are hungry"? Are we talking 4000 calories a day? This is not anything that I have heard of with regards to type II diabetics which honestly is largely caused by obesity not the other way around.

Aaron_K123

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.

A calorie is a calorie. If you're talking about micronutrients, vitamins and minerals that's something different. But a calorie still equals a calorie.

As far as the energy required to heat a certain amount of water a single degree through burning.

Unfortunately, our metabolism doesn't work the same way a fire does and why we can't eat everything that fire can burn.

Actually our metabolism works pretty much exactly like fire, converting hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water. Protein, carbs, fat...all hydrocarbons for a chemical engine.

You might say that our metabolism isn't 100% efficient and you would be correct but that inefficiency applies equally and therefore that 100 calories becomes the energetic equivalent of 75 calories regardless. Your claim seems to be that this is macro-centric on the basis of insulin resistance but I am sorry if you are eating from all three macros (which everyone does) that inefficiency would be distributed equally. If your body was terribly inneficient at processing carbohydrates then its response would be to burn additional carbohydrates to compensate or burn from the other macro groups in a way that compensated for that innefficiency...in otherwords you would burn MORE food to generate a similar amount of energy which mean that you would be prone to being thin, not overweight.

Type II diabeties is often caused by obesity. You seem to be claiming that obesity is caused by being type II diabetic. That is totally backwards.

Pixydin

Calories count but when you have insulin sensitivity, keeping carbs low in my diet helps with not wanting more and more carbs.

lindsey1979

Some of these people simply don't understand basic (and not so basic) biology. When you have a metabolic disorder, your body isn't doing what it's supposed to, and the extent of its deviation from the norm can vary greatly. So, if someone with a metabolic disorder eats food, it isn't metabolized in the same way. They can get a lot less of the energy that one usually would -- you see this in insulin resistance for example. Rather than using the food for energy, they get to use only part of it and part of it gets stored as fat.

That makes no sense. If someone had a metabolic disorder that caused them to get considerably less energy from consumed food and they had to eat more as a result that would not result in excess fat storage. That does not follow at all. If someone had an inefficient metabolism then their body would have to process MORE food to yield the same amount of energy and in processing it utilize it...not store it. A person with an inneficient metabolism like the one you describe would struggle to eat enough to not be underweight, they wouldn't struggle with being overweight.

You should read up on how insulin resistance works. Because that's exactly what happens effectively.

The cells are insulin resistant. They don't allow the energy to enter them. The pancreas excretes more insulin to compensate. The energy moves into the cells. What isn't used at that time is stored as fat. Blood glucose drops. Hunger ensues. Cycle continues...

Explain to me how someone with an inneficient metabolism (meaning they yield less energy per calorie consumed) would gain fat as a result of that inefficiency. That does not follow. You seem to be saying that someone with an inefficient metabolism not only eats more but eats so much more that they not only compensate for their inneficient metabolism but overshoot to the point that they gain weight. Why? Apparently because "they are hungry"? Are we talking 4000 calories a day? This is not anything that I have heard of with regards to type II diabetics which honestly is largely caused by obesity not the other way around.

I think that is going to depend on how you define "inefficient". I can imagine definitions that function in both directions, depending on the perspective. I prefer to look at it as abnormal metabolism rather than efficiency based. People's bodies that are not acting within the "normal" parameters for food metabolism, fat storage, etc. So the normal rules don't apply in the same ways.

Aaron_K123

Some of these people simply don't understand basic (and not so basic) biology. When you have a metabolic disorder, your body isn't doing what it's supposed to, and the extent of its deviation from the norm can vary greatly. So, if someone with a metabolic disorder eats food, it isn't metabolized in the same way. They can get a lot less of the energy that one usually would -- you see this in insulin resistance for example. Rather than using the food for energy, they get to use only part of it and part of it gets stored as fat.

That makes no sense. If someone had a metabolic disorder that caused them to get considerably less energy from consumed food and they had to eat more as a result that would not result in excess fat storage. That does not follow at all. If someone had an inefficient metabolism then their body would have to process MORE food to yield the same amount of energy and in processing it utilize it...not store it. A person with an inneficient metabolism like the one you describe would struggle to eat enough to not be underweight, they wouldn't struggle with being overweight.

You should read up on how insulin resistance works. Because that's exactly what happens effectively.

The cells are insulin resistant. They don't allow the energy to enter them. The pancreas excretes more insulin to compensate. The energy moves into the cells. What isn't used at that time is stored as fat. Blood glucose drops. Hunger ensues. Cycle continues...

Explain to me how someone with an inneficient metabolism (meaning they yield less energy per calorie consumed) would gain fat as a result of that inefficiency. That does not follow. You seem to be saying that someone with an inefficient metabolism not only eats more but eats so much more that they not only compensate for their inneficient metabolism but overshoot to the point that they gain weight. Why? Apparently because "they are hungry"? Are we talking 4000 calories a day? This is not anything that I have heard of with regards to type II diabetics which honestly is largely caused by obesity not the other way around.

I think that is going to depend on how you define "inefficient". I can imagine definitions that function in both directions, depending on the perspective. I prefer to look at it as abnormal metabolism rather than efficiency based. People's bodies that are not acting within the "normal" parameters for food metabolism, fat storage, etc. So the normal rules don't apply in the same ways.

I was using your definition as stated in your post.

So, if someone with a metabolic disorder eats food, it isn't metabolized in the same way. They can get a lot less of the energy that one usually would

By that definition they would have to consume more food to get equivalent energy and therefore their predisposition would be to be thinner not fatter and they would have to consume more than average to maintain their weight. Math applies regardless. If they get less energy from food that means they either have to eat much more than normal or they lose weight. Such a person would not struggle with obesity, quite the opposite.

lindsey1979

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.

A calorie is a calorie. If you're talking about micronutrients, vitamins and minerals that's something different. But a calorie still equals a calorie.

As far as the energy required to heat a certain amount of water a single degree through burning.

Unfortunately, our metabolism doesn't work the same way a fire does and why we can't eat everything that fire can burn.

Actually our metabolism works pretty much exactly like fire, converting hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water. Protein, carbs, fat...all hydrocarbons for a chemical engine.

You might say that our metabolism isn't 100% efficient and you would be correct but that inefficiency applies equally and therefore that 100 calories becomes the energetic equivalent of 75 calories regardless. Your claim seems to be that this is macro-centric on the basis of insulin resistance but I am sorry if you are eating from all three macros (which everyone does) that inefficiency would be distributed equally. If your body was terribly inneficient at processing carbohydrates then its response would be to burn additional carbohydrates to compensate or burn from the other macro groups in a way that compensated for that innefficiency...in otherwords you would burn MORE food to generate a similar amount of energy which mean that you would be prone to being thin, not overweight.

Type II diabeties is often caused by obesity. You seem to be claiming that obesity is caused by being type II diabetic. That is totally backwards.

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.

lindsey1979

snip

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!

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.

Aaron_K123

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.

A calorie is a calorie. If you're talking about micronutrients, vitamins and minerals that's something different. But a calorie still equals a calorie.

As far as the energy required to heat a certain amount of water a single degree through burning.

Unfortunately, our metabolism doesn't work the same way a fire does and why we can't eat everything that fire can burn.

Actually our metabolism works pretty much exactly like fire, converting hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide and water. Protein, carbs, fat...all hydrocarbons for a chemical engine.

You might say that our metabolism isn't 100% efficient and you would be correct but that inefficiency applies equally and therefore that 100 calories becomes the energetic equivalent of 75 calories regardless. Your claim seems to be that this is macro-centric on the basis of insulin resistance but I am sorry if you are eating from all three macros (which everyone does) that inefficiency would be distributed equally. If your body was terribly inneficient at processing carbohydrates then its response would be to burn additional carbohydrates to compensate or burn from the other macro groups in a way that compensated for that innefficiency...in otherwords you would burn MORE food to generate a similar amount of energy which mean that you would be prone to being thin, not overweight.

Type II diabeties is often caused by obesity. You seem to be claiming that obesity is caused by being type II diabetic. That is totally backwards.

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.

mrbyte

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.

lindsey1979

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.

kenc1971

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.

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.
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!

In for quote pyramid.

eric_sg61

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.

You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trolling

lindsey1979

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.

mrbyte

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.

You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trolling

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.

LiminalAscendance

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.

Mr_Knight

Why is that the more....extravagant...claims always seem to come from people with closed diaries?

LiminalAscendance

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...

lindsey1979

snip

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!

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.