A calorie is not a calorie - proof sugar is the problem.

You must know how many middle aged women hate you right now? J/K. But seriously, this is highly unusual for a woman in her 40s, that is not extremely active, to lose this much weight eating 2200 cals a day. Consider yourself very fortunate to have been blessed with that awesome metabolism. Please tell me that you were at least lifting heavy, or that you had a very physically active job? Or that you are 6 ft tall? Give me SOMETHING, please!
Congrats on your success. :flowerforyou:

However, when you consider that our bodies in their present state haven't evolved significantly for at least 30,000 years and how much new 'food' we've introduced like sugar - it seems a rational argument that we simply haven't had time to adapt to these and they therefore present as toxins in significant quantities.

baloney.

you get fat by eating too many calories. THAT'S THE REASON. whether the calories are fats, proteins, or carbs matters very, very little (except for those with real medically diagnosed issues).

Not baloney. The type of calories-in can dictate how many calories-out just as much if not more then physical activity. It still all comes down to calories in vs out and I am not denying it. Our bodies don't burn all foods the same and that changes the amount of calories your body actually uses and how many it stores.

Curious

For those who claim they can lose weight while eating loads of sugar, have any of you ever been very overweight or obese?

I think this is a really important distinction to make when talking about this issue because the idea is is that if you are someone who has problems with sugar, you are going to get obese and to lose that weight you have to cut down on sugar.

If you've never been really overweight then it's likely you don't have an issue with sugar, in which case this doesn't apply to you.

While I agree with you, this topic has been hotly debated ad nauseum on mfp and any other nutrition related forum.

Even the so called experts do not agree. This being the case, I believe the weight/health conscious world falls into one of 2 camps. Those that are sensitive to sugars and starches and those who are not.

You know well which one of these groups you fall into and if you don't, eventually you will. This is because it will either work for you or not.

If limiting starches and sugars does not affect you, it's a bunch of broscience....and since this is your experience, it's quite valid.

However, if you are unfortunate enough to fall into the camp of sugars and starches producing a whole host of problems resulting in serious imbalances, well, it just plain sucks. It also adds a lot of resentment for the folks who have no sugar/starch issues because it's as if this particular person's experience is invalid.

Bottom line is, even though sugars and starches are not for me, I surely wish that people would concede that both sides of the equation are valid. Once armed with the information it's up to you to you to figure out what will work for you.

My personal pov is that i wish i took seriously all the warnings the OP was talking about instead of calling bs because it sounded like a conspiracy theory.

Pretty much was going to say thing. So much people get up in arms because "Well, this wasn't *my* experience, therefore yours must be invalid!", and then find a bunch of links backing up their preferred "diets." It's not hard to find a bunch of support (or, "support") for your choice because there's SO MUCH out there, on all sides of the equation.

I realize the whole point of these forums is to discuss, sometimes debate (although it frequently isn't a proper debate, but rather snarky or sometimes downright rude replies). But at what point do people just give up, and say, eff it all, I'll just do my own thing, and you do your own thing?

Unless you enjoy the arguing, then by all means, have at it!

it's never valid to allow faulty assumptions/conclusions to go unchallenged. that's the underlying principle of science. so if you think weight loss and nutrition is voodoo and magic, then i suppose you can adopt the mantra that "what works for one person might not work for another". i personally cannot accept that, because it's not true. the OP made assertions that need to be challenged, and many MFP members are rightly challenging them.