DIE DIE DIE!!!

Are y'all seriously still bickering about this?

Also you haven't yet answered clarifying which of the myths you think are realities.

Clarifying which ones I believe are realities would be a waste of time... because either way it will be an argument. "I heard it on this show" or "I read a blog" or some sort of reason someone believes it is false based on what the "heard."

Either way people will believe what they believe, regardless of facts or science, both directions... also based on what they perceive as facts or science... so it is pointless to argue with people who are not receptive to ones opinions if they initially disagree. I have mien you have yours... we are both entitled to them.

Also you haven't yet answered clarifying which of the myths you think are realities.

Clarifying which ones I believe are realities would be a waste of time... because either way it will be an argument. "I heard it on this show" or "I read a blog" or some sort of reason someone believes it is false based on what the "heard."

Either way people will believe what they believe, regardless of facts or science, both directions... also based on what they perceive as facts or science... so it is pointless to argue with people who are not receptive to ones opinions if they initially disagree. I have mien you have yours... we are both entitled to them.

Also you haven't yet answered clarifying which of the myths you think are realities.

Clarifying which ones I believe are realities would be a waste of time... because either way it will be an argument. "I heard it on this show" or "I read a blog" or some sort of reason someone believes it is false based on what the "heard."

Either way people will believe what they believe, regardless of facts or science, both directions... also based on what they perceive as facts or science... so it is pointless to argue with people who are not receptive to ones opinions if they initially disagree. I have mien you have yours... we are both entitled to them.

Post the science to back up your claims and people will consider them seriously. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of science. Nearly all the myths on the first couple of pages are myths. I would be interested in any scientific evidence proving them not to be. I go with what has the most scientific evidence. That means changing my opinion if necessary - but only when the weight of evidence warrants it.

You perceived it as *****y... the comment didn't attack you as a person, it attacked an idea you put forward. Your comment was an ad hominem attack, i.e. directed at a person. That makes a huge difference.

I perceived it as such based on the abrasive context... it doesn't make a huge difference when the content of the "attack on a belief" is condescending to the person who suggested it... and the "THOSE people" comment wasn't referring a those who disagree, it was referring to the people that will automatically post condescending replies to someone they disagree with....

Sigh.

Look. If the idea was that your metabolism changed while you were sleeping, the advice would be "wait for an hour before you go to sleep" just like the old swimming myth.

The reality is that it takes between 6 and 8 hours for your food to digest in your stomach and small intestine. This means that not eating after 6 would mean that you would need to wait until midnight or 2 am to go to sleep. I don't know about you, but I go to bed between 10:30 and 11.

It's about 33 to 55 hours for it to go from consumption to elimination.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340

The 50 pounds I've lost says that meal timing is irrelevant.

That artificial sweetener is perfectly fine, or good for you as some think.

This is not a myth.

You perceived it as *****y... the comment didn't attack you as a person, it attacked an idea you put forward. Your comment was an ad hominem attack, i.e. directed at a person. That makes a huge difference.

I perceived it as such based on the abrasive context... it doesn't make a huge difference when the content of the "attack on a belief" is condescending to the person who suggested it... and the "THOSE people" comment wasn't referring a those who disagree, it was referring to the people that will automatically post condescending replies to someone they disagree with....

Sigh.

Look. If the idea was that your metabolism changed while you were sleeping, the advice would be "wait for an hour before you go to sleep" just like the old swimming myth.

The reality is that it takes between 6 and 8 hours for your food to digest in your stomach and small intestine. This means that not eating after 6 would mean that you would need to wait until midnight or 2 am to go to sleep. I don't know about you, but I go to bed between 10:30 and 11.

It's about 33 to 55 hours for it to go from consumption to elimination.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340

The 50 pounds I've lost says that meal timing is irrelevant.

........plus the fact that if it was bad to eat within a certain number of hours before sleeping, then we'd better all get into time machines and warn all the Homo erectuses about that....... though I think it might be a bit difficult to explain the concept of "8pm" to a Homo erectus....




ETA: Homo erectus mentioned twice in one thread for two different reasons... BINGO! :drinker: ..... next time I'm going for a hattrick!!

The alternate ways of credibly supporting one's arguments on MFP include
*presence of ripped abs
*quantity of punctuation
*accurate spelling and grammar
*level of butthurt

However, to gain the most respect, links to peer reviewed articles are probably your best bet.

The standard BMI calculator tells me that as a 6'0" male that I need to look like an Auschwitz prisoner at 135-150 lbs to have a "normal" body. Um, sorry pal, that ain't normal, and that ain't healthy. I looked like a stick in high school and I was 158 lbs.

As a young adult I bicycled 50 miles a day, was in perfect health, and weighed 185 lbs, which is "overweight" according to the BMI calculator. I don't know who came up with that garbage, but it is not based on any reality for a person with normal musculature. I believe the standard BMI calculator is deceiving people into losing both fat and muscle that is in fact healthy for them.

The alternate ways of credibly supporting one's arguments on MFP include
*presence of ripped abs
*quantity of punctuation
*accurate spelling and grammar
*level of butthurt

However, to gain the most respect, links to peer reviewed articles are probably your best bet.

I would be much more inclined to have a debate and justify my reasoning to you, if you weren't such condescending person. You are the person people don't like to talk to because instead of having an adult conversation you attempt to make people feel inferior by talking down to them... So you are not worth my time. If you were more reasonable and less _____ then I would be happy to share my argument with you.

You remind me of a friend I had when I was 10. She always had the most magnificent toys that she couldn't show me either because of some exotic reason or because of a personal failing of mine. "I was going to show you, but you were two minutes late."

I made my point and backed it up. There is a reason why the saying is "The truth will prevail."

Evidence is evidence is evidence, no matter the personality of the person delivering it.

your perception is off. You need to recalibrate your snark detector, because it's over-sensitive. Tone of voice does not come across on the internet, you might want to try reading her posts in a more cheerful, happy-go-lucky tone of voice.

Also, again, you're replying with ad hominem attacks, which isn't going to endear you to anyone. On this site, that kind of thing usually unleashes a tornado of kitty gifs.

You perceived it as *****y... the comment didn't attack you as a person, it attacked an idea you put forward. Your comment was an ad hominem attack, i.e. directed at a person. That makes a huge difference.

I perceived it as such based on the abrasive context... it doesn't make a huge difference when the content of the "attack on a belief" is condescending to the person who suggested it... and the "THOSE people" comment wasn't referring a those who disagree, it was referring to the people that will automatically post condescending replies to someone they disagree with....

Sigh.

Look. If the idea was that your metabolism changed while you were sleeping, the advice would be "wait for an hour before you go to sleep" just like the old swimming myth.

The reality is that it takes between 6 and 8 hours for your food to digest in your stomach and small intestine. This means that not eating after 6 would mean that you would need to wait until midnight or 2 am to go to sleep. I don't know about you, but I go to bed between 10:30 and 11.

It's about 33 to 55 hours for it to go from consumption to elimination.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340

The 50 pounds I've lost says that meal timing is irrelevant.

........plus the fact that if it was bad to eat within a certain number of hours before sleeping, then we'd better all get into time machines and warn all the Homo erectuses about that....... though I think it might be a bit difficult to explain the concept of "8pm" to a Homo erectus....




ETA: Homo erectus mentioned twice in one thread for two different reasons... BINGO! :drinker: ..... next time I'm going for a hattrick!!

That would be really fun. Let's do it!!!

After we tell the Homo Erectus about raspberry ketones, can we go back and stand on the edge of the Tethys sea and watch the first amphibious animals skitter about?

your perception is off. You need to recalibrate your snark detector, because it's over-sensitive. Tone of voice does not come across on the internet, you might want to try reading her posts in a more cheerful, happy-go-lucky tone of voice.

Also, again, you're replying with ad hominem attacks, which isn't going to endear you to anyone. On this site, that kind of thing usually unleashes a tornado of kitty gifs.

Right, as I did not suggest you could read tone, it is the content that suggests that it is condescending. So you are telling me that ragging on grammar, spelling, and overuse of punctuation isn't ad hominem? But hey, you can see ONE side... good for you.

You remind me of a friend I had when I was 10. She always had the most magnificent toys that she couldn't show me either because of some exotic reason or because of a personal failing of mine. "I was going to show you, but you were two minutes late."

I made my point and backed it up. There is a reason why the saying is "The truth will prevail."

Evidence is evidence is evidence, no matter the personality of the person delivering it.

So I can at least be semi-humble in the sense that you provided information I had not seen and what is seemingly legitimate evidence. BUT, I stand firm that the way you approach it is not a great way to get people to listen to you. When you take a condescending route to explaining new information to people, it automatically makes people look at you negatively and like an egotistical "know-it-all." But COOL you proved your point with a link... like I said, enjoy a cookie...