A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Replies
-
Metabolic condishuns effect like .03% of the population. Not every ****en obese person has one. Their biggest problem is: overeating. Duh. Calories in> out is 100% effective for pretty much everyone. Its just people don't want to stop eating too much. Whatever the reason and there are valid reasons. But that's a different conversation. Its simple math and physics.
See, Mr.M27, it's this sort of stuff that drives me nuts. And this user isn't the only one to say that metabolic conditions are extremely rare (most seem to say 1% or less). And this simply IS NOT true.
Insulin resistance affects over 40% of the population of US adults (at prediabetic or diabetic levels). Thyroid disorders are estimated at up to 7-10% of the population. And that's only 2 issues. Throw in PCOS, IBS, other gastric issues, etc., they aren't small numbers.
Misinformation like this does no one any good.0 -
for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.
I'm unclear as to how that is special and not just part of the normal bell curve distribution you would expect from a large population. No one claims that what is written on a box in terms of calories is the exact amount of energy that everyones body extracts from that, however it IS going to be a percent modifier...meaning that if you pick up the box with 300 calories in it verses 150 calories in it that you will get twice the number of calories even if your body only efficiently processes 75% of them. Its all relative so the numbers on the box are still informative.
then you misunderstood what i said. after calculating my BMR/RMR using the standard methods and comparing that to my oTDEE, my BMR is only approximately 75% of the expected calculations. which means in order to create a large enough caloric deficit to result in the "normal", expected rates of loss, i have to drop down below 1,000 calories a day to lose half a pound per week, and below 750 per day to lose 1 pound per week. that's unsustainable and dangerous, and a pretty clear indication that either something is wrong, either medically or genetically.
besides, if you had a machine (of any type) that was only working at 75% efficiency, 75% speed, or 75% capacity, you'd want to get it fixed, wouldn't you? if it was within 90% of the specs, you probably wouldn't complain too much. but imagine if your car only got 75% of its expected gas mileage, or only went 75% of the speed noted on the speedometer... you'd call that out of the ordinary, not "part of the normal bell-curve distribution."Of course you have to track your intake, of course you have to track your weight loss and then backcalculate to determine your maintenance to establish your deficit for you personally. If you actually read the main forum posts that is exactly what people say to do.
i love how people assume i fell off the turnip truck yesterday and don't know what the frack i'm doing.:explode:CICO doesn't mean that the number on a food box is the exact energy that your body extracts CICO means A) establish what your maintenance level is on the basis of those values THEN
establish a consistant deficit. If you don't do step A then you can't be suprised when step B doesn't work.
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.
What I'm hearing is that Calories In - Calories Out would cause you to lose or gain weight.
However, your particular metabolism makes it impossible for you to lose weight while supporting your nutritional needs.
Metabolic condishuns effect like .03% of the population. Not every ****en obese person has one. Their biggest problem is: overeating. Duh. Calories in> out is 100% effective for pretty much everyone. Its just people don't want to stop eating too much. Whatever the reason and there are valid reasons. But that's a different conversation. Its simple math and physics.
Lindsey argues that they affect >40% of the population.
It's not Lindsey arguing it. It's Lindsey citing the statistics from the American Diabetes Association.
Prediabetes: In 2012, 86 million Americans age 20 and older had prediabetes; this is up from 79 million in 2010.
Prevalence: In 2012, 29.1 million Americans, or 9.3% of the population, had diabetes. In 2010 the figures were 25.8 million and 8.3%.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/#sthash.4jcSFKAp.dpuf
35% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older have prediabetes. Only 7.3% of Americans with prediabetes have been told they have it.
25.8 million Americans, 8.3% of the population, have diabetes (in 2010).
http://professional.diabetes.org/admin/userfiles/0 - sean/fastfacts march 2013.pdf
This means that 28% of the US adult population or older has prediabetes and does not know about it. 25% of those with diabetes don't know about it (2% of the US adult population). So in total more than 1/4 of our population has diabetes or prediabetes and DOES NOT KNOW it. And another 13% that do know about.0 -
Yea okay. As if I didn't know well enough already your style of trying to insult people. You can say I have a short man complex if you'd like. You can think that. But one thing we do know is, I'm not the one that's made excuses as to why the goal has been unattainable.Once again, where is the insult? Is it because you're short? I didn't think you had a short man's complex, but perhaps you do. You could learn more from your dog.
And I have? Come again.0 -
What happened to:
(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption) which does not give a very solid comparison. If the test group focused on fat was given a more restrictive fat level (<15%), I wonder what the results would be?
You can certainly add it! I said "at least 5," not "only 5."
It's an interesting one. My guess is that if this is a factor--which it could be--it would be because most have to modify their diet substantially to get carbs below 40 (I focus on eating more protein since I find it more satiating, and yet I'm still around 125 g carbs, and that's on a calorie deficit). On the other hand, I'd bet 30% fat is pretty standard or close to it. So you wouldn't have to think about your diet much to comply.0 -
Keeping in mind that the baseline fat consumption was only 35%, while the baseline carb consumption was over 200g/day. So comparing a (self-reported) 80%+ cut in carbs vs a 15% cut in fat. Adjusted for caloric density, the study asked for nearly 3x the calorie cut from the LC group relative to the LF group.
Ah, actual information. Even better than my speculation. Good theory.0 -
for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.
I'm unclear as to how that is special and not just part of the normal bell curve distribution you would expect from a large population. No one claims that what is written on a box in terms of calories is the exact amount of energy that everyones body extracts from that, however it IS going to be a percent modifier...meaning that if you pick up the box with 300 calories in it verses 150 calories in it that you will get twice the number of calories even if your body only efficiently processes 75% of them. Its all relative so the numbers on the box are still informative.
then you misunderstood what i said. after calculating my BMR/RMR using the standard methods and comparing that to my oTDEE, my BMR is only approximately 75% of the expected calculations. which means in order to create a large enough caloric deficit to result in the "normal", expected rates of loss, i have to drop down below 1,000 calories a day to lose half a pound per week, and below 750 per day to lose 1 pound per week. that's unsustainable and dangerous, and a pretty clear indication that either something is wrong, either medically or genetically.
besides, if you had a machine (of any type) that was only working at 75% efficiency, 75% speed, or 75% capacity, you'd want to get it fixed, wouldn't you? if it was within 90% of the specs, you probably wouldn't complain too much. but imagine if your car only got 75% of its expected gas mileage, or only went 75% of the speed noted on the speedometer... you'd call that out of the ordinary, not "part of the normal bell-curve distribution."Of course you have to track your intake, of course you have to track your weight loss and then backcalculate to determine your maintenance to establish your deficit for you personally. If you actually read the main forum posts that is exactly what people say to do.
i love how people assume i fell off the turnip truck yesterday and don't know what the frack i'm doing.:explode:CICO doesn't mean that the number on a food box is the exact energy that your body extracts CICO means A) establish what your maintenance level is on the basis of those values THEN establish a consistant deficit. If you don't do step A then you can't be suprised when step B doesn't work.
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.
What I'm hearing is that Calories In - Calories Out would cause you to lose or gain weight.
However, your particular metabolism makes it impossible for you to lose weight while supporting your nutritional needs.
Metabolic condishuns effect like .03% of the population. Not every ****en obese person has one. Their biggest problem is: overeating. Duh. Calories in> out is 100% effective for pretty much everyone. Its just people don't want to stop eating too much. Whatever the reason and there are valid reasons. But that's a different conversation. Its simple math and physics.
:huh:
so... what... because if (as you claim) it only affects 0.03% of the population, it doesn't exist at all? 0.03% of 300 million is 9 million people. are you trying to say it's not possible for one (or more) of those 9 million people to be members of MFP?
did you know that you have a 0.0133% chance of dying during childbirth? i'll bet you'd NEVER think you'd EVER see ANYONE on here who had done THAT, then...
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Comment on me all you'd like faceless soul. Wallow in self hatred and keep thinking everyone is fat shaming. A little self confidence can take you far. No need to hide behind the cartoon girl.I wish I would have avoided this thread!
First of all, I'm pretty new here, but I have seen a lot of "There's no such thing as a special snowflake. You are not counting right, either your calories in or your calories burnt are wrong." Then, someone brings up a case where a body might use nutrients differently, and they get attitude for bringing it up. It reads like this to me, "there's no such thing as a special snowflake." "But what about A, B, Or C? ". "Stop bringing up special snowflakes!"... "There's no such thing as a special snowflake."
What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way? That's what everyone keeps asking for, proof, examples, etc. My Drs. have me on a low carb diet, for oh no, insulin resistance! However, I don't think that it is the only answer. It is just what works for me and my body. I exercise too. In fact changing my diet has helped me with my migraines which were happening frequently. (3-4 times a week). This has allowed me to start running. So, now, I've been able to add more exercise to my routine. And yes I also count calories, but it's more to make sure I'm eating enough. I don't feel anywhere near as hungry as I used to feel.
So, to answer another question, my one sentence advice would be, "Find a way to lose weight that works for your body's needs".
If you feel better with carbs, eat them. If not, don't. I'm not sure at all why low carb diets seem to anger so many people. I got some rude responses on another thread. It's sort of discouraging when the life choices you make are constantly being denigrated. And then you get insulted to top it off.
What it boils down to,to me, is that losing weight is hard work, no matter what. Does it matter if I lose the weight because my body processes sugar and carbs differently so I cut them down? Or if I cut them down to maintain a caloric deficit? Or if I lose the weight by just maintaining a caloric deficit? One person's experience does not negate another person's.
These forums are for entertainment purposes only.
Don't take it personally.
Some of us actually like genuine exchange of ideas. If you're coming here for entertainment, wow, your pickings must be slim in the entertainment arena.
I'm sorry. I must have confused you with the person that was talking about chihuahuas.
My apologies.
That wasn't directed to you.
I would think you'd be better at figuring that stuff out, considering your immense post count.0 -
(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption...
Keeping in mind that the baseline fat consumption was only 35%, while the baseline carb consumption was over 200g/day. So comparing a (self-reported) 80%+ cut in carbs vs a 15% cut in fat. Adjusted for caloric density, the study asked for nearly 3x the calorie cut from the LC group relative to the LF group.
Curiously, looked at from that perspective, the reported weight losses suggest the LC group was less able to meet the macro requirements than was the LF group.
Yes. That's what I was getting at - the low carb group made a more significant change from baseline than the low fat group. It is interesting how the results came out, but I think some of that could be due to the self reporting and a more quantitative measurement for carbs (40g) rather than a percent of intake for fat.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way?
Nothing, but we haven't seen proof. We've seen assertions that make no scientific sense and no effort to explain them in a way that would.
If someone were to say "I do better on a low carb diet," no argument from me. What makes individuals feel more satiated or more energetic, etc., obviously varies. Indeed, if someone were to say she feels better eating 80% carbs, I'd just shrug and figure people are different, even though it wouldn't work for me.
But that's not the norm nor what people were jumping on here (unless I misread or missed it). The norm is people insisting that they eat ABOVE maintenance calories on some special diet (here, low carb, but often something else, like raw foods) and lose. That low carb leads to fewer calories being eaten seems unsurprising. That one can eat 2500 calories and lose if low carb, while eating 1200 and gaining on the SAD (which is what gets claimed) is what I frankly do not believe. If that's supposed to be true, I'd like an explanation of the mechanism.
Here, the assertion was made that eating low carb (even not at a deficit) causes you to lose fat (the reverse of the common claim that one gains fat by eating fruit or other high sugar or carb foods) and that someone can magically gain weight eating less than maintenance. Again, I don't see how that happens.
None of this is an argument with the fact that low carb diets work great for some people, likely better than other alternatives.0 -
(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption...
Keeping in mind that the baseline fat consumption was only 35%, while the baseline carb consumption was over 200g/day. So comparing a (self-reported) 80%+ cut in carbs vs a 15% cut in fat. Adjusted for caloric density, the study asked for nearly 3x the calorie cut from the LC group relative to the LF group.
Curiously, looked at from that perspective, the reported weight losses suggest the LC group was less able to meet the macro requirements than was the LF group.
Yes. That's what I was getting at - the low carb group made a more significant change from baseline than the low fat group. It is interesting how the results came out, but I think some of that could be due to the self reporting and a more quantitative measurement for carbs (40g) rather than a percent of intake for fat.
Sort of, sort of not. By the end of the one year group, the low carb group was averaging 127 c rather than 40. Whereas the low fat group was closer to 200 g.0 -
You do realize that I'm the one in the thread that has the chihuahua. But anyway, doesn't matter.
Comment on me all you'd like faceless soul. Wallow in self hatred and keep thinking everyone is fat shaming. A little self confidence can take you far. No need to hide behind the cartoon girl.I wish I would have avoided this thread!
First of all, I'm pretty new here, but I have seen a lot of "There's no such thing as a special snowflake. You are not counting right, either your calories in or your calories burnt are wrong." Then, someone brings up a case where a body might use nutrients differently, and they get attitude for bringing it up. It reads like this to me, "there's no such thing as a special snowflake." "But what about A, B, Or C? ". "Stop bringing up special snowflakes!"... "There's no such thing as a special snowflake."
What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way? That's what everyone keeps asking for, proof, examples, etc. My Drs. have me on a low carb diet, for oh no, insulin resistance! However, I don't think that it is the only answer. It is just what works for me and my body. I exercise too. In fact changing my diet has helped me with my migraines which were happening frequently. (3-4 times a week). This has allowed me to start running. So, now, I've been able to add more exercise to my routine. And yes I also count calories, but it's more to make sure I'm eating enough. I don't feel anywhere near as hungry as I used to feel.
So, to answer another question, my one sentence advice would be, "Find a way to lose weight that works for your body's needs".
If you feel better with carbs, eat them. If not, don't. I'm not sure at all why low carb diets seem to anger so many people. I got some rude responses on another thread. It's sort of discouraging when the life choices you make are constantly being denigrated. And then you get insulted to top it off.
What it boils down to,to me, is that losing weight is hard work, no matter what. Does it matter if I lose the weight because my body processes sugar and carbs differently so I cut them down? Or if I cut them down to maintain a caloric deficit? Or if I lose the weight by just maintaining a caloric deficit? One person's experience does not negate another person's.
These forums are for entertainment purposes only.
Don't take it personally.
Some of us actually like genuine exchange of ideas. If you're coming here for entertainment, wow, your pickings must be slim in the entertainment arena.
I'm sorry. I must have confused you with the person that was talking about chihuahuas.
My apologies.
That wasn't directed to you.
I would think you'd be better at figuring that stuff out, considering your immense post count.
Why worry about what matters?
You don't get to your post count by only sticking to the important stuff!0 -
I am not a doctor or anything but I would like to comment on this. I have lost weight several times and then gained it back again. I have been to every meeting there is for weight loss programs and its true there is no easy way. I believe you have to account for your calories. I think that is what this Fitness Pal is about. Recording everything you eat and accounting for all your calories. Its hard to realize that you have to look at it in writing, etc. I found out that protein is the important thing, reason being it stays with you longer than carbs do. The body was designed to eat protein, more so than carbs. I don't know if everyone is the same way or not but if I don't get more protein that carbs I will definitely not make it through till the next meal and I found that is when I eat way to many carbs. I think the body needs carbs, but eaten in excess can cause weight gain. But..I was told by the doctor that we need carbs so our body functions right both physically and mentally. At least using my fitness pal, we can look at what we are eating and how many calories and I think just like everything else we must be balanced0
-
You do realize that I'm the one in the thread that has the chihuahua. But anyway, doesn't matter.
Comment on me all you'd like faceless soul. Wallow in self hatred and keep thinking everyone is fat shaming. A little self confidence can take you far. No need to hide behind the cartoon girl.I wish I would have avoided this thread!
First of all, I'm pretty new here, but I have seen a lot of "There's no such thing as a special snowflake. You are not counting right, either your calories in or your calories burnt are wrong." Then, someone brings up a case where a body might use nutrients differently, and they get attitude for bringing it up. It reads like this to me, "there's no such thing as a special snowflake." "But what about A, B, Or C? ". "Stop bringing up special snowflakes!"... "There's no such thing as a special snowflake."
What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way? That's what everyone keeps asking for, proof, examples, etc. My Drs. have me on a low carb diet, for oh no, insulin resistance! However, I don't think that it is the only answer. It is just what works for me and my body. I exercise too. In fact changing my diet has helped me with my migraines which were happening frequently. (3-4 times a week). This has allowed me to start running. So, now, I've been able to add more exercise to my routine. And yes I also count calories, but it's more to make sure I'm eating enough. I don't feel anywhere near as hungry as I used to feel.
So, to answer another question, my one sentence advice would be, "Find a way to lose weight that works for your body's needs".
If you feel better with carbs, eat them. If not, don't. I'm not sure at all why low carb diets seem to anger so many people. I got some rude responses on another thread. It's sort of discouraging when the life choices you make are constantly being denigrated. And then you get insulted to top it off.
What it boils down to,to me, is that losing weight is hard work, no matter what. Does it matter if I lose the weight because my body processes sugar and carbs differently so I cut them down? Or if I cut them down to maintain a caloric deficit? Or if I lose the weight by just maintaining a caloric deficit? One person's experience does not negate another person's.
These forums are for entertainment purposes only.
Don't take it personally.
Some of us actually like genuine exchange of ideas. If you're coming here for entertainment, wow, your pickings must be slim in the entertainment arena.
I'm sorry. I must have confused you with the person that was talking about chihuahuas.
My apologies.
That wasn't directed to you.
I would think you'd be better at figuring that stuff out, considering your immense post count.
She was insulting me, Mr.M27. Or attempting to anyway.0 -
I wish I would have avoided this thread!
First of all, I'm pretty new here, but I have seen a lot of "There's no such thing as a special snowflake. You are not counting right, either your calories in or your calories burnt are wrong." Then, someone brings up a case where a body might use nutrients differently, and they get attitude for bringing it up. It reads like this to me, "there's no such thing as a special snowflake." "But what about A, B, Or C? ". "Stop bringing up special snowflakes!"... "There's no such thing as a special snowflake."
What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way? That's what everyone keeps asking for, proof, examples, etc. My Drs. have me on a low carb diet, for oh no, insulin resistance! However, I don't think that it is the only answer. It is just what works for me and my body. I exercise too. In fact changing my diet has helped me with my migraines which were happening frequently. (3-4 times a week). This has allowed me to start running. So, now, I've been able to add more exercise to my routine. And yes I also count calories, but it's more to make sure I'm eating enough. I don't feel anywhere near as hungry as I used to feel.
So, to answer another question, my one sentence advice would be, "Find a way to lose weight that works for your body's needs".
If you feel better with carbs, eat them. If not, don't. I'm not sure at all why low carb diets seem to anger so many people. I got some rude responses on another thread. It's sort of discouraging when the life choices you make are constantly being denigrated. And then you get insulted to top it off.
What it boils down to,to me, is that losing weight is hard work, no matter what. Does it matter if I lose the weight because my body processes sugar and carbs differently so I cut them down? Or if I cut them down to maintain a caloric deficit? Or if I lose the weight by just maintaining a caloric deficit? One person's experience does not negate another person's.
These forums are for entertainment purposes only.
Don't take it personally.
Some of us actually like genuine exchange of ideas. If you're coming here for entertainment, wow, your pickings must be slim in the entertainment arena.
Oh please, genuine exchange of ideas...you're funny.
I know it's crazy. But there is some good information shared by people that genuinely want to help others achieve their goals, regardless of the specific method they use. It's sort of like a flea market here on the forums -- some genuine treasure admist a load of other people's crap. But the treasure is there if you're willing to put up with the garbage.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption...
Keeping in mind that the baseline fat consumption was only 35%, while the baseline carb consumption was over 200g/day. So comparing a (self-reported) 80%+ cut in carbs vs a 15% cut in fat. Adjusted for caloric density, the study asked for nearly 3x the calorie cut from the LC group relative to the LF group.
Curiously, looked at from that perspective, the reported weight losses suggest the LC group was less able to meet the macro requirements than was the LF group.
You're assuming that they kept everything else equal. Did the study say they didn't or (and more importantly for your point) were instructed to eat the same grams they had been eating of everything else?0 -
My doctor and nutrionist have me on a higher carb diet with protein to balance it. 181 g of carb a day, 78 g of protein a day and 48 or less g fat a day. I think I will follow what they are telling me to do.0
-
Metabolic condishuns effect like .03% of the population. Not every ****en obese person has one. Their biggest problem is: overeating. Duh. Calories in> out is 100% effective for pretty much everyone. Its just people don't want to stop eating too much. Whatever the reason and there are valid reasons. But that's a different conversation. Its simple math and physics.
See, Mr.M27, it's this sort of stuff that drives me nuts. And this user isn't the only one to say that metabolic conditions are extremely rare (most seem to say 1% or less). And this simply IS NOT true.
Insulin resistance affects over 40% of the population of US adults (at prediabetic or diabetic levels). Thyroid disorders are estimated at up to 7-10% of the population. And that's only 2 issues. Throw in PCOS, IBS, other gastric issues, etc., they aren't small numbers.
Misinformation like this does no one any good.
Lindsey, do you know what the acceptable number for total cholesterol used to be and what it is now? Do we have a better understanding of cholesterol? Probably. Do we have an increase in the number of people taking meds and at an earlier age, yes, without a doubt. Do you know with an aging population you have increased numbers of folks with thyroid issues? And those numbers are over-estimated according to some.
http://www.thyroid.org/patient-thyroid-information/ct-for-patients/vol-5-issue-11/vol-5-issue-11-p-3/
Try to keep things in perspective.0 -
My doctor and nutrionist have me on a higher carb diet with protein to balance it. 181 g of carb a day, 78 g of protein a day and 48 or less g fat a day. I think I will follow what they are telling me to do.
Congratulations!
You're choosing to follow the advice of professionals, as opposed to listening to the anonymous, unaccountable multitudes whose only selling point is that they have an active internet connection.
Was someone trying to tell you to do otherwise?0 -
Metabolic condishuns effect like .03% of the population. Not every ****en obese person has one. Their biggest problem is: overeating. Duh. Calories in> out is 100% effective for pretty much everyone. Its just people don't want to stop eating too much. Whatever the reason and there are valid reasons. But that's a different conversation. Its simple math and physics.
See, Mr.M27, it's this sort of stuff that drives me nuts. And this user isn't the only one to say that metabolic conditions are extremely rare (most seem to say 1% or less). And this simply IS NOT true.
Insulin resistance affects over 40% of the population of US adults (at prediabetic or diabetic levels). Thyroid disorders are estimated at up to 7-10% of the population. And that's only 2 issues. Throw in PCOS, IBS, other gastric issues, etc., they aren't small numbers.
Misinformation like this does no one any good.
Lindsey, do you know what the acceptable number for total cholesterol used to be and what it is now? Do we have a better understanding of cholesterol? Probably. Do we have an increase in the number of people taking meds and at an earlier age, yes, without a doubt. Do you know with an aging population you have increased numbers of folks with thyroid issues? And those numbers are over-estimated according to some.
http://www.thyroid.org/patient-thyroid-information/ct-for-patients/vol-5-issue-11/vol-5-issue-11-p-3/
Try to keep things in perspective.
Fair enough, but that also only addresses the thyroid issue -- that higher levels may be more appropriate in older people. And, frankly, as far as thyroid stuff goes, I think they have a lot to learn. The tests have not caught up with actual symptoms as you'll find quite a few people that are hypo that have huge battles with doctors over lab values.
As for insulin resistance, it's not like the American Diabetes Association is some crazy, fly-by-night operation. And even if the numbers are somewhat inflated, they're still HUGE. Unless you think they're off by a magnitude of 1000%, which seems highly unlikely. At the very least, they know the diagnosed numbers.0 -
0.03% of 300 million is 9 million people.
The number you're looking for is 90,000 not 9 million.
But this is still good, because based on your post I strongly suggest you open your diary so we can check your math before you declare yourself a special snowflake.0 -
I am diabetic, so "Low-Carbing" really works for me.
I'm doing the Paleo Lifestyle, so I don't eat wheat, corn, legumes, rice, or dairy.
My inflammations in my joints are gone, my skin has improved, and my hormones are balancing.
Some suggestions for research:
marksdaily apple.com
paleohacks.com
Even if you don't believe in the beneifits of the Low-Carb lifestyle,
please read the "wheatbellyblog.com"
to find a practice which just might solve a lot of your weight-loss struggles.
Best Wishes!0 -
0.03% of 300 million is 9 million people.
The number you're looking for is 90,000 not 9 million.
But this is still good, because based on your post I strongly suggest you open your diary so we can check your math before you declare yourself a special snowflake.
Gotta love the MFP forums, where one can feel superior for calling someone out on elementary math.0 -
0.03% of 300 million is 9 million people.
The number you're looking for is 90,000 not 9 million.
But this is still good, because based on your post I strongly suggest you open your diary so we can check your math before you declare yourself a special snowflake.
Gotta love the MFP forums, where one can feel superior for calling someone out on elementary math.
It doesn't make me feel superior, it makes me feel sad. This is a person who is clearly struggling but unable to find their answer.
While it appears, based on posting history, that most of the problem is self-inflicted, it's still saddening, because it's no fun when other people are struggling. 0 -
0.03% of 300 million is 9 million people.
The number you're looking for is 90,000 not 9 million.
But this is still good, because based on your post I strongly suggest you open your diary so we can check your math before you declare yourself a special snowflake.
Gotta love the MFP forums, where one can feel superior for calling someone out on elementary math.
It doesn't make me feel superior, it makes me feel sad. This is a person who is clearly struggling but unable to find their answer. While it appears, based on posting history, that most of the problem is self-inflicted, it's still saddening, because it's no fun when other people are struggling.
my diary is open to friends. as i said before, everything is weighed, measured, and portioned. i cook at home, so every ingredient is listed in the recipe builder, matched with the appropriate database entry, and portioned accordingly. i log first, THEN eat, just in case a portion is going to send me over on one thing or another.
and... i'm sorry, but... self-inflicted??? are you trying to claim that i over eat specifically so that i can whine about not losing weight?
you're right that it's no fun when people are struggling... it's even less fun when you're the one struggling and people dismiss you as nothing more than an idiot.0 -
0.03% of 300 million is 9 million people.
The number you're looking for is 90,000 not 9 million.
But this is still good, because based on your post I strongly suggest you open your diary so we can check your math before you declare yourself a special snowflake.
Gotta love the MFP forums, where one can feel superior for calling someone out on elementary math.
It doesn't make me feel superior, it makes me feel sad. This is a person who is clearly struggling but unable to find their answer. While it appears, based on posting history, that most of the problem is self-inflicted, it's still saddening, because it's no fun when other people are struggling.
You'd better watch out. MrM something-or-other may call you one of those "faceless demons," or something like that.
Unless you're actually Lou Reed or Cary Elwes, LOL!
ETA: Or maybe he just reserves that treatment for those who aren't beating the same drum.0 -
This content has been removed.
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
- 423 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