Carbs/Weightloss??
Replies
-
What about portion size? A small serving of pasta served with vegetables and a home made pasta sauce then a huge bowl covered in cheese. Not to sure what you're having.
Feel free to add me everyone.
If you pick the right foods, you can have HUGE portions and still lose weight.
just about every morning I have 2 eggs, 4 slices of soy bacon, and a low carb/high fiber tortilla. Only about 350 calories/20 carbs/9 fiber ( so 11net carbs) and I am full until lunch. At lunch I make a huge salad ( I use a bowl that holds 7 cups) with chicken, cukes, mushrooms, sometimes berries. depending on what is for dinner, sometimes I have a *bad* snack--one night it was an Atkins fudge brownie with 2T of PB on top. Does it sound like I deprive myself?0 -
I eat high carb, and lost 60 pounds in 6 months. Barring a metabolic disorder, and keeping protein constant, low carb doesn't offer any fat loss advantage.BTW - low carbs = 30 pounds lost in 5 months.0 -
Going to quote myself from another thread again beause I'm lazy and have a sprained wrist, so typing blows. I will add to this though that barring medically diagnosed conditions (not what your self medicating *kitten* looked in the mirror and decided was afflicting you today) these rules hold true.If calories in vs calories out isn't everything, do people on low carb diets still consider how many calories they've eaten?
I've been eating relatively low carb (70-80g per day) and on a calorie deficit for a few weeks, and I'm losing nicely and feel good on the low carb diet, but my hubby tells me I'm too obsessed with the calories, and that the calories don't matter ... I should just count the carbs.
Any thoughts?
Your body uses energy. It measures this energy in units called calories.
Macronutrients provide these calories, and each have a specific grams/calories conversion.
One gram carbohydrate - 4 calories
One gram protein - 4 calories
One gram fat - 9 calories
It doesn't matter what you read, what you think, what your stupid hippy friend told you; your body obeys the laws of physics. It doesn't matter if you are eating low carb, high protein, high fat; or that weird fad diet said hippy friend told you about. Your body has energy demands, and it will go about meeting those demands one way or another.
Yes, what you eat can affect your health and well being, but caloric demands are caloric demands. If you get nine calories of fat per gram from bacon, several times throughout the day, versus nine calories of fat per gram of salmon; will your cardiovascular health differ in the long run? Quite likely. If you get four calories per gram of protein from white rice versus four calories per gram of protein from quinoa is your lean body mass going to be affected in the long run? Probably.
However, in either case if the caloric inputs are the same. The energy consumed versus expended is the same. Your metabolism remains fairly constant, the only factors that really affect it are age, sex, height, weight etc. Everything else, "thermogenic" foods, extreme calorie deficits etc don't really make it budge as much as people like to think. Why do extremely fat people lose weight very fast? Because it takes much more energy to sustain that giant frame, puts more stress on the system...and obese people have been storing a very rich source of fuel on their bodies in the form of fat.
It's like if you tow a load with your car, or hell, drive the average vehicle faster than 70 mph; you start to consume more fuel.
So to circle all the way back to your question; yes of course you f*cking count calories still. This isn't witchcraft. If you eat less carbs, yes you will retain less water, your "fat" loss will progress more smoothly in a visible sense on the scale and in general fluctuations in weight a person goes through just in a day, but it all breaks down to calories in versus calories out.0 -
Now I will touch a bit on ketosis; ketosis is very effective though not sustainable for targeted fat loss. The cliff notes of ketosis is that it puts your body into a state where it is readily metabolising calorie rich fat, to process not as calorie rich and harder to break down into energy; protein.
However the principles are still the same, and even on ketosis you do it in cycles, and "carb load" inbetween.0 -
I did Weight Watchers Points Plus a little over a year ago. I lost 40 lbs. in 5 months and really did eat what I wanted to eat--the key was portion control and moderate exercise. I am a type 2 diabetic. Pre WW, my A1C was 13. At my lowest point during WW, my A1C had dropped to 6.9. My dr. actually called me in person to congratulate me. I didn't go low carb at all...I simply followed the points.
WW has gotten to be quite expensive though--so I'm trying out MFP. I'm seeing that WW points equate to roughly 40 calories each, and the MFP breakdown for carbs, fat, protein and fiber are about the same as well.
I really think that weight loss is as individual as we are...different things work for different people.0 -
So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.0
-
So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.
Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.
Absolutely correct.0 -
So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.
I don't plan on counting carbs at all, only calories. I find that with counting calories and avoiding too much sugar, things work for me. I just need to STICK to it. That's an elf control problem.:)0 -
Eat the good carbs! Make sure you are eating the correct percentage of your macros. according to your age, weight etc. the protein, carbs, fat, calories....
good carbs: brown rice, sweet potatoes...
Stay away from the bleached white rice, white potatoes, pastas...0 -
I seem to have a problem keeping my daily carb intake low. Most of which come from fruits and veggies and whole grains but It's still always about 50% or more over my fats and protein. It's hard to cut down. Ive cut down eating rice and pastas but it seems i cant get away from carbs. What do you recommend? What low carb foods are you eating.0
-
So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.
Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.
Absolutely correct.
So this "water weight" that everyone talks about, let's say in the above scenario that this person will gain a couple of lbs of it. Does that mean it's sustained? For instance, I've always been a low carb fan (I totally get the low calorie simple math thing). I joined in March and of course did the whole 1200 calorie thing first for about 6 weeks (lost 4 lbs) until I realized that someone that is 5'11 and lifting heavy should probably eat more so I upped it to 1700 and have been pretty strict with it (eat back about 1/2 my exercise cals). Gained back the 4 lbs and am sitting exactly where I was the day I signed up. I do look different from the lifting but over the course of 3.5 months, more fat should've come off with the simple mathematics (I'm an accountant so I would love this if it worked for me). I decided Monday to go low carb again and see what happened. Now, if I lose "water weight" this week, that's water weight I've been sustaining since I"ve been eating at a deficit (doesn't matter WHAT based on this theory I'm eating so let's not get into that).
I don't understand why people can't accept some things work for some and some things DON'T work for some.0 -
I totally agree with you. I think everyone has to decide what works best for them. For me, I feel better ( less ravenous, more of that solid 5 on a scale of 1-10 1 being starving, 10 being so full). I eat carbs, but healthy ones- sweet potatoes, brown rice, fruit etc.0
-
Eat the good carbs! Make sure you are eating the correct percentage of your macros. according to your age, weight etc. the protein, carbs, fat, calories....
good carbs: brown rice, sweet potatoes...
Stay away from the bleached white rice, white potatoes, pastas...
Understand what good carbs/bad carbs are, and how to ideally consume them.
White rice for one, isn't generally bleached. It's rice with the husk, bran and everything else removed. It was done very manually for something to the tune of several hundred years. Actual non sun based bleaching wasn't prevalently around until A.D.
Sweet potatos, very good carbs, as in complex...make sure you eat them with fat though, else you are not getting as much nutrition out of it as those who do.
Fruit? Bad carb! Very bad carb! (Yes it is), however, fruit itself generally has fiber, protein and a slew of other micro nutrients which outweigh the fact that fruit is ultimately a simple carb.
The primary difference between simple "good" and complex "bad" carbs is how easy it is for your body to break either food down into the same ultimate product, a carbohydrate to give it 4 calories worth of fuel. Generally unless you have DIAGNOSED insulin issue or some other medical complication, carbs are carbs. Certain carb heavy foods may affect you differently in satiety, water retention, insulin control, etc, but it all comes down to chemistry.0 -
One glycogen molecule is stored with 2.7 grams of water. Reduce the carbs, you reduce the glycogen and water. This is the initial weight loss and also why people who low carb gain so much weight back when they eat carbs.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I totally agree.. a calorie isn't created equal!0
-
I totally agree.. a calorie isn't created equal!
A kilometer is 1000 meters, isn't it?0 -
I would say that I agree with this statement.Heh, this is a sensitive topic for me....In 4 months on these boards, I have noticed a very distinct pattern.
The vast majority of men answering your question will say it's only calories in/calories out, and carbs don't matter. And that you need your carbs (this especially from men who do lifting).
Half the women who will answer your question will say it isn't just calories, you need to restrict carbs to see weightloss.
Some women (who do intensive exercise including weights) will agree with the majority of the men.
And some women will come on the boards saying "I'm eating my recommended calories and not losing weight", when their carbs are still really high. I have seen a looooooot of those.
I'm in the low-carb camp. It's the only thing that works for me. I'm also sedentary and currently don't have time to add exercise to my routine. If you exercise, I would still reduce your carbs, but not really low. If you exercise intensively, including weights, I would probably stick to the MFP recommended breakdown of your macros, following a 40% carbs/30% protein/30% fat breakdown.
Both here and on other sites I frequent where weight loss comes up, the OVERWHELMING number of women find success with (or only with) watching carbs.
I think runners NEED more carbs. While visiting family, I did my brother in law's high school track/cross country practice. Afterwards, I needed carbs to replenish what I had burned...totally different than gym workouts.I'm an exception to your rule - a woman who eat lots of carbs and doesn't do much strength training. I'm a runner and love my carbs, and I'm not planning to give them up anytime soon.To me, low carbs do nothing more then restrict an intake of calories. It is the restriction of those calories that cause weight loss... not the carbs themselves.
Not always the case. I eat 1800 calories but have been keeping my carbs below 100.
I think everyone's body is different. I know that when I was in my 20s and 30s, restricting calories worked wonderfully. Now, that I am in my 40s, I found that I needed to restrict my carbs. So, I have kept my calories up, but kept my carbs around the below 100 range.
I am now changing things up a bit since I am at goal weight and have changed my macros to 35/35/30, this allows for 20 more carbs, which is a nice treat.
I teach Zumba and I often have women ask what they should do to lose their weight around their mid-section, I always tell them to pull back their carbs and increase their protein....and sometimes even their calories because they will join the gym, workout a ton, and then eat salad and fruit all day. I have found a lot of success with myself and my girls eating more calories but keeping their carbs lower.
I love this site:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-primal-carbohydrate-continuum/#axzz1tS2Cgl870 -
Water weight is tied to glycogen storage, which is directly tied to carb intake. So yes, if you increase carbs and maintain them at the same level, you will gain water weight. That water weight will fluctuate based on how much glycogen your body uses doing normal functions, and how many carbs you eat to replenish what's used. Drastically cutting carbs leads to drastic glycogen loss, which leads to water loss. This is why people cut carbs, lose a bunch of weight in a week or two, and then add carbs back in and immediately gain. Then cut carbs and immediately lose again. It's just manipulation of water weight, and has no bearing on fat loss.So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.
Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.
Absolutely correct.
So this "water weight" that everyone talks about, let's say in the above scenario that this person will gain a couple of lbs of it. Does that mean it's sustained? For instance, I've always been a low carb fan (I totally get the low calorie simple math thing). I joined in March and of course did the whole 1200 calorie thing first for about 6 weeks (lost 4 lbs) until I realized that someone that is 5'11 and lifting heavy should probably eat more so I upped it to 1700 and have been pretty strict with it (eat back about 1/2 my exercise cals). Gained back the 4 lbs and am sitting exactly where I was the day I signed up. I do look different from the lifting but over the course of 3.5 months, more fat should've come off with the simple mathematics (I'm an accountant so I would love this if it worked for me). I decided Monday to go low carb again and see what happened. Now, if I lose "water weight" this week, that's water weight I've been sustaining since I"ve been eating at a deficit (doesn't matter WHAT based on this theory I'm eating so let's not get into that).
I don't understand why people can't accept some things work for some and some things DON'T work for some.0 -
So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.
Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.
Absolutely correct.
So this "water weight" that everyone talks about, let's say in the above scenario that this person will gain a couple of lbs of it. Does that mean it's sustained? For instance, I've always been a low carb fan (I totally get the low calorie simple math thing). I joined in March and of course did the whole 1200 calorie thing first for about 6 weeks (lost 4 lbs) until I realized that someone that is 5'11 and lifting heavy should probably eat more so I upped it to 1700 and have been pretty strict with it (eat back about 1/2 my exercise cals). Gained back the 4 lbs and am sitting exactly where I was the day I signed up. I do look different from the lifting but over the course of 3.5 months, more fat should've come off with the simple mathematics (I'm an accountant so I would love this if it worked for me). I decided Monday to go low carb again and see what happened. Now, if I lose "water weight" this week, that's water weight I've been sustaining since I"ve been eating at a deficit (doesn't matter WHAT based on this theory I'm eating so let's not get into that).
I don't understand why people can't accept some things work for some and some things DON'T work for some.
I don't understand why people believe that people without any diagnosed medical conditions impacting metabolic functions have bodies that function based on the rules of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and not fundamental laws of biology, physics, and chemistry.0 -
So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.
Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.
Absolutely correct.
So this "water weight" that everyone talks about, let's say in the above scenario that this person will gain a couple of lbs of it. Does that mean it's sustained? For instance, I've always been a low carb fan (I totally get the low calorie simple math thing). I joined in March and of course did the whole 1200 calorie thing first for about 6 weeks (lost 4 lbs) until I realized that someone that is 5'11 and lifting heavy should probably eat more so I upped it to 1700 and have been pretty strict with it (eat back about 1/2 my exercise cals). Gained back the 4 lbs and am sitting exactly where I was the day I signed up. I do look different from the lifting but over the course of 3.5 months, more fat should've come off with the simple mathematics (I'm an accountant so I would love this if it worked for me). I decided Monday to go low carb again and see what happened. Now, if I lose "water weight" this week, that's water weight I've been sustaining since I"ve been eating at a deficit (doesn't matter WHAT based on this theory I'm eating so let's not get into that).
I don't understand why people can't accept some things work for some and some things DON'T work for some.
I don't understand why people believe that people without any diagnosed medical conditions impacting metabolic functions have bodies that function based on the rules of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and not fundamental laws of biology, physics, and chemistry.
Me either. I guess I'd be rich if I did.
sidenote - I wonder how many of us are walking around with undiagnosed conditions?0 -
Water weight is tied to glycogen storage, which is directly tied to carb intake. So yes, if you increase carbs and maintain them at the same level, you will gain water weight. That water weight will fluctuate based on how much glycogen your body uses doing normal functions, and how many carbs you eat to replenish what's used. Drastically cutting carbs leads to drastic glycogen loss, which leads to water loss. This is why people cut carbs, lose a bunch of weight in a week or two, and then add carbs back in and immediately gain. Then cut carbs and immediately lose again. It's just manipulation of water weight, and has no bearing on fat loss.So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.
Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.
Absolutely correct.
So this "water weight" that everyone talks about, let's say in the above scenario that this person will gain a couple of lbs of it. Does that mean it's sustained? For instance, I've always been a low carb fan (I totally get the low calorie simple math thing). I joined in March and of course did the whole 1200 calorie thing first for about 6 weeks (lost 4 lbs) until I realized that someone that is 5'11 and lifting heavy should probably eat more so I upped it to 1700 and have been pretty strict with it (eat back about 1/2 my exercise cals). Gained back the 4 lbs and am sitting exactly where I was the day I signed up. I do look different from the lifting but over the course of 3.5 months, more fat should've come off with the simple mathematics (I'm an accountant so I would love this if it worked for me). I decided Monday to go low carb again and see what happened. Now, if I lose "water weight" this week, that's water weight I've been sustaining since I"ve been eating at a deficit (doesn't matter WHAT based on this theory I'm eating so let's not get into that).
I don't understand why people can't accept some things work for some and some things DON'T work for some.
First picture, December 2011, with a year of working out and eating normal.
Jan 1, I decided to get this extra weight off. Cut calories back to 1200 calories and exercised. Did not lose weight. By the end of February, I was freaking. I had a friend suggest eating more food and increase my protein. During my research, I found some body builders that do 35/35/30, I also found that link that I posted my earlier post. I increased calories, increased protein and lowered carbs to below 100 (Not Atkins, just lower)
Picture two, last week. I would think that the 14 pounds that I have lost since the end of February is fat an not water weight
I think that everyone's body is different. Some can eat 300 carbs a day and still lose, while others need to drop their carbs. But you can't tell someone that has lost fat doing low carb or a lower carb diet that they only lost water weight.0 -
You look amazing TinkrBelz! Great work!! What's your workout regime?
Thanks!!
I teach Zumba, but I throw in a lot of other things into my class so it is a full body workout. I have a lot of working moms and they need to get it all in in that hour. So, I do some floor exercises, small weights for arms, planks, sumo squats, Hip Hop Abs moves, and Brazil Butt Lift moves. I feel it is a challenge to see what I can do in just an hour class!! I teach 8 classes a week.
So, I think my class makes my muscle pretty, but the lower carb diet has shed that layer of fat that was on top of them hiding my girl muscles.0 -
Water weight is tied to glycogen storage, which is directly tied to carb intake. So yes, if you increase carbs and maintain them at the same level, you will gain water weight. That water weight will fluctuate based on how much glycogen your body uses doing normal functions, and how many carbs you eat to replenish what's used. Drastically cutting carbs leads to drastic glycogen loss, which leads to water loss. This is why people cut carbs, lose a bunch of weight in a week or two, and then add carbs back in and immediately gain. Then cut carbs and immediately lose again. It's just manipulation of water weight, and has no bearing on fat loss.So basically what people are saying is that if you restrict your carbs AND your calories, when you hit your goal weight, you can eat as many carbs as you want as long as you're not over maintenance and not gain a single lb back. Interesting.
Yes, you will not gain a single pound of FAT back if you eat under or within maintenance and pack the carbs in.
Absolutely correct.
So this "water weight" that everyone talks about, let's say in the above scenario that this person will gain a couple of lbs of it. Does that mean it's sustained? For instance, I've always been a low carb fan (I totally get the low calorie simple math thing). I joined in March and of course did the whole 1200 calorie thing first for about 6 weeks (lost 4 lbs) until I realized that someone that is 5'11 and lifting heavy should probably eat more so I upped it to 1700 and have been pretty strict with it (eat back about 1/2 my exercise cals). Gained back the 4 lbs and am sitting exactly where I was the day I signed up. I do look different from the lifting but over the course of 3.5 months, more fat should've come off with the simple mathematics (I'm an accountant so I would love this if it worked for me). I decided Monday to go low carb again and see what happened. Now, if I lose "water weight" this week, that's water weight I've been sustaining since I"ve been eating at a deficit (doesn't matter WHAT based on this theory I'm eating so let's not get into that).
I don't understand why people can't accept some things work for some and some things DON'T work for some.
First picture, December 2011, with a year of working out and eating normal.
Jan 1, I decided to get this extra weight off. Cut calories back to 1200 calories and exercised. Did not lose weight. By the end of February, I was freaking. I had a friend suggest eating more food and increase my protein. During my research, I found some body builders that do 35/35/30, I also found that link that I posted my earlier post. I increased calories, increased protein and lowered carbs to below 100 (Not Atkins, just lower)
Picture two, last week. I would think that the 14 pounds that I have lost since the end of February is fat an not water weight
I think that everyone's body is different. Some can eat 300 carbs a day and still lose, while others need to drop their carbs. But you can't tell someone that has lost fat doing low carb or a lower carb diet that they only lost water weight.
Agreed! Same story. Below ALL the weight loss was low carb ONLY. I have no idea how many calories I was eating but I guarantee you it was at least 2000 if not 3000 (cheese and pork are way up there). I've gained about 7 lbs from the after picture which was taken December of 2008.
That being said, like I stated earlier, I'm also restricting my calories to a deficit this time just as kind of my own personal study to see what happens.
0 -
Being a person that has in the past done Atkins, successfully, but then went back to over indulging, I lose very slowly. I now try to pick whole foods to eat, low processed foods. Whole grain cereals, breads, etc.. Brown rice, sweet potatoes, lots of lower starch veggies, and fruit. I try to keep sugar low/none. I don't drink diet pop or juices. I keep meats lean, white and red. I keep sodium lower.
Learning how your body loses and maintains is the key. I don't lose if I eat under 1200 calories a day, I lose best at approx 1300-1400 cals per day, not working out, 1400 to 1500 if I am working out. But I know someone that gains working out and eating 1200 cals per day. It really is an individual thing..0 -
For me ..... the less fried food, bakery items, pasta & sugar I consume, the more weight I lose :drinker:
Best of luck to you !0 -
I use to think like you too but I found that eliminating an entire food group wasn't realistic. Now, I eat what I want, of course in moderation and I exercise. I measure my food(spaghetti for example is 1 cup including suace and meat) instead of fixing a plate full and eating until I'm stuffed. I also read serving information. You'd be surprised at the amount we really need to satisfy us vs being full.0
-
It totally depend on you!! Everyone is different!! My body doesn't do well with complex carbs!
I eat them as a treat...some lucky people can eat them all day long! Maybe it depends on your blood type??0 -
Everyone is different. Myself, I have lost more weight doing lower carbs. However, it's not just counting carbs, it's your overall intake. I've found how to balance my macros overall to give me low carbs/ high fat/ high protein.0
-
It depends on your body. I have PCOS and insulin resistance (which a lot of overweight people do), so yes, cutting carbs does help me lose weight. Nothing drastic. Around 100 g (30%) seems to be what a lot of people with insulin resistance do.
This.
I low-carb after advice from my primary care dr. and dietician.
No sugar.
White flour replaced with whole wheat and grains.
White rice replaced with brown.
White starchy pasta replaced with whole wheat pastas containing omega 3 or low carb version.
Starchy potatoes & other veggie are limited.
Fruit is limited to mornings only so my body will metabolize the sugar.
Everything is lean & grean.
Basically the meal plan she gave me came from the American Diebetes Association.
I suggest anyone with a health problem work with their dr. for a plan that works for them. Weight loss plans are not a "one size fits all" product.0 -
I use to think like you too but I found that eliminating an entire food group wasn't realistic. Now, I eat what I want, of course in moderation and I exercise. I measure my food(spaghetti for example is 1 cup including suace and meat) instead of fixing a plate full and eating until I'm stuffed. I also read serving information. You'd be surprised at the amount we really need to satisfy us vs being full.
I wish they had a "like" button for posts. I agree with you completely.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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