Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
eating before bed
Replies
-
PikaKnight wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »you love to mock people who seem pretty damn successful for being clueless?
What are to talking about when you say "people who seem pretty damn successful"?
I would say one of them is Ed - a loss of 312 lb's seems pretty successful to me.
Why would I mock Ed who I do not know. I congrat Ed for that loss and all that set a goal and get even 10% the way there because they set a goal and did something positive for themselves. I think this thread may have related to some making a false statement that a calorie is a calorie and I posted links supporting a calorie is not always a calorie?
Been hauling hay today so my memory may be wrong on this subject being an old man per LLLE.
Except..a calorie is a calorie. Are you saying Ed and Psulemon (not to mention a few others who have posted in agreement with CICO and have lost significant amounts of weight/are at goal) are wrong in how they lost weight?
PikaKnight I have never said they are wrong in how they lost weight. To do so would be stupid and very unprofessional. I have never made a comment about weight loss to them that I know.
All I have ever commented on is to say a calorie is a calorie is known to be false by current research and I posted links to that data. I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time. Thinking a calorie is a calorie does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce. Thinking the earth is flat does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce.
How did you come to think I slammed they for losing weight? I am missing your logic so please help me understand your mindset. I do think you are serious.
Thanks
Gale Hawkins
-2 -
I unfortunately eat the bulk of my calories at night. I'm not a eater during the day. But I have stayed within my calories and have lost the weight.. I too believe that it doesn't matter when you eat, as long as you stay within your macros..0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »
PikaKnight I have never said they are wrong in how they lost weight. To do so would be stupid and very unprofessional. I have never made a comment about weight loss to them that I know.
All I have ever commented on is to say a calorie is a calorie is known to be false by current research and I posted links to that data. I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time. Thinking a calorie is a calorie does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce. Thinking the earth is flat does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce.
How did you come to think I slammed they for losing weight? I am missing your logic so please help me understand your mindset. I do think you are serious.
Thanks
Gale Hawkins
So.. they ate food (most likely from any source, really), the calories were below their maintenance needs, and they lost weight. I.e. calories in/calories out.
But I guess if their maintenance levels were all around 2500 and they each ate 2000 calories worth of caramel apples and chocolate pretzels, and only these things, they didn't lose weight right, since a calories is not just a calorie, right?
Oh wait.....
And of course thinking the earth is flat doesn't affect weight loss. Whatever weird analogy or comparison you just tried to make totally did not work.
0 -
EvelynR1967 wrote: »I unfortunately eat the bulk of my calories at night. I'm not a eater during the day. But I have stayed within my calories and have lost the weight.. I too believe that it doesn't matter when you eat, as long as you stay within your macros..
Oh girl if I did this I'd be murdering everyone LOL! I didn't eat for 9 hours today after breakfast (not by choice) and felt so blaaah. I did wind up eating 2-3 meals int he last few hours though, but I needs my big-*kitten* breakfast0 -
Well, umm, yes, no kidding - I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time too.GaleHawkins wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »you love to mock people who seem pretty damn successful for being clueless?
What are to talking about when you say "people who seem pretty damn successful"?
I would say one of them is Ed - a loss of 312 lb's seems pretty successful to me.
Why would I mock Ed who I do not know. I congrat Ed for that loss and all that set a goal and get even 10% the way there because they set a goal and did something positive for themselves. I think this thread may have related to some making a false statement that a calorie is a calorie and I posted links supporting a calorie is not always a calorie?
Been hauling hay today so my memory may be wrong on this subject being an old man per LLLE.
Except..a calorie is a calorie. Are you saying Ed and Psulemon (not to mention a few others who have posted in agreement with CICO and have lost significant amounts of weight/are at goal) are wrong in how they lost weight?
. I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time. Thinking a calorie is a calorie does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce. Thinking the earth is flat does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce.
Of course.
Just like everyone else does - ie CICO.
And you are right - thinking a calorie is a calorie does not make one lose or gain an ounce, nor does thinking the earth is flat ( rather random comparison) nor does thinking anything.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if they eat less than they burn over time, they lose weight.
And a calorie is a calorie like a mile is a mile, a kilogram is a kilogram, any unit of measurement is that unit of measurement.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »
Well, umm, yes, no kidding - I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time too.GaleHawkins wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »you love to mock people who seem pretty damn successful for being clueless?
What are to talking about when you say "people who seem pretty damn successful"?
I would say one of them is Ed - a loss of 312 lb's seems pretty successful to me.
Why would I mock Ed who I do not know. I congrat Ed for that loss and all that set a goal and get even 10% the way there because they set a goal and did something positive for themselves. I think this thread may have related to some making a false statement that a calorie is a calorie and I posted links supporting a calorie is not always a calorie?
Been hauling hay today so my memory may be wrong on this subject being an old man per LLLE.
Except..a calorie is a calorie. Are you saying Ed and Psulemon (not to mention a few others who have posted in agreement with CICO and have lost significant amounts of weight/are at goal) are wrong in how they lost weight?
. I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time. Thinking a calorie is a calorie does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce. Thinking the earth is flat does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce.
Of course.
Just like everyone else does - ie CICO.
And you are right - thinking a calorie is a calorie does not make one lose or gain an ounce, nor does thinking the earth is flat ( rather random comparison) nor does thinking anything.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if they eat less than they burn over time, they lose weight.
And a calorie is a calorie like a mile is a mile, a kilogram is a kilogram, any unit of measurement is that unit of measurement.
I agree as long as you are not applying it to humans trying to diet and I posted research that a calorie is a calorie when applying it dieting is a known false statement today.
Please not I have no desire to change anyone's mind that a calorie is a calorie or that the earth is flat just because someone said they were true a long time ago.
All I ask is you and others stop making non factual statements and claiming they are factual. You are risking hurting people and this fine forum in doing so. Claiming the earth is flat or that all calories are the same when placed in the human body does not make the statements true.
It is a good thing I am in nutritional ketosis so I have the energy to keep typing without getting hungry. Thankfully LLLE has not sent any private messages for a few hours now calling me names. God help me if she goes low carb and getting into ketosis unless the calming effect kicks in.
Folks who are serious about low low carbing with high high fats let me warn you. The stamina is unreal in nutritional ketosis and you will wear your friends out if you are out walking, etc I am finding. The kids are like let us stop and eating when working around the place. But it not a wired form of energy like from coffee or something but a very calm relaxing form of energy. Another plus is when I go to bed I tend to sleep like a log and and often longer that the normal six hours because the arthritis pain does not wake me up or have me so stiff I have to get up due to hurting.
-5 -
Nobody is claiming the earth is flat so not getting why you need to change anyone's mind on that.
I dont know who LLLE is and if you find more stamina on your diet, good for you.
But a calorie is still a calorie - this is hardly a non factual statement and is certainly not hurting anyone on this forum by saying so. (except for derailing the thread which was actually about eating before bed time)0 -
I think part of the problem is that there is a serious confusion between weight loss and optimum function.
The first is really, really simple (not necessarily easy, but simple).
Burn more than you consume.
The second is incredibly complex and has a lot of intersecting physical and emotional factors, which makes it hard to quantify, because medical science is kind of still in kindergarten in terms of a detailed understanding of optimal* human function.
If I ate 1700 calories of pure sugar every day, I would most certainly lose weight. Absolutely, no question. So CICO is right there.
Would I feel very good? Nope, and I don't have any blood sugar disorder that I know of, either. However, "feel good" is subjective and not very quantifiable. So, you're dealing with two different arguments: one easily mensurate and objective, the other difficult to quantify and subjective.
That said, that Gale person doesn't know how to science. Not even a little.
* Then, of course, the engineers would chime in, "Optimized for what?" which is a whole 'nother tangle of spaghetti, even if they ARE right.0 -
NoelFigart1 wrote: »I think part of the problem is that there is a serious confusion between weight loss and optimum function.
The first is really, really simple (not necessarily easy, but simple).
Burn more than you consume.
The second is incredibly complex and has a lot of intersecting physical and emotional factors, which makes it hard to quantify, because medical science is kind of still in kindergarten in terms of a detailed understanding of optimal* human function.
If I ate 1700 calories of pure sugar every day, I would most certainly lose weight. Absolutely, no question. So CICO is right there.
Would I feel very good? Nope, and I don't have any blood sugar disorder that I know of, either. However, "feel good" is subjective and not very quantifiable. So, you're dealing with two different arguments: one easily mensurate and objective, the other difficult to quantify and subjective.
That said, that Gale person doesn't know how to science. Not even a little.
* Then, of course, the engineers would chime in, "Optimized for what?" which is a whole 'nother tangle of spaghetti, even if they ARE right.
^^yep.
Plus, the theoretical 'optimal' plan really is not optimal in practice. As note above, so many other variables come into play that, at the end of the day, and as long as you apply relatively sensible food selection, the 'best' plan is the one that has you burning more than you consume and allows you to adhere to it - which also includes the way you feel physically and mentally. This is highly individual, as is the 'optimal' plan for people.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
Well, umm, yes, no kidding - I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time too.GaleHawkins wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »you love to mock people who seem pretty damn successful for being clueless?
What are to talking about when you say "people who seem pretty damn successful"?
I would say one of them is Ed - a loss of 312 lb's seems pretty successful to me.
Why would I mock Ed who I do not know. I congrat Ed for that loss and all that set a goal and get even 10% the way there because they set a goal and did something positive for themselves. I think this thread may have related to some making a false statement that a calorie is a calorie and I posted links supporting a calorie is not always a calorie?
Been hauling hay today so my memory may be wrong on this subject being an old man per LLLE.
Except..a calorie is a calorie. Are you saying Ed and Psulemon (not to mention a few others who have posted in agreement with CICO and have lost significant amounts of weight/are at goal) are wrong in how they lost weight?
. I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time. Thinking a calorie is a calorie does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce. Thinking the earth is flat does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce.
Of course.
Just like everyone else does - ie CICO.
And you are right - thinking a calorie is a calorie does not make one lose or gain an ounce, nor does thinking the earth is flat ( rather random comparison) nor does thinking anything.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if they eat less than they burn over time, they lose weight.
And a calorie is a calorie like a mile is a mile, a kilogram is a kilogram, any unit of measurement is that unit of measurement.
I agree as long as you are not applying it to humans trying to diet and I posted research that a calorie is a calorie when applying it dieting is a known false statement today.
Please not I have no desire to change anyone's mind that a calorie is a calorie or that the earth is flat just because someone said they were true a long time ago.
All I ask is you and others stop making non factual statements and claiming they are factual. You are risking hurting people and this fine forum in doing so. Claiming the earth is flat or that all calories are the same when placed in the human body does not make the statements true.
It is a good thing I am in nutritional ketosis so I have the energy to keep typing without getting hungry. Thankfully LLLE has not sent any private messages for a few hours now calling me names. God help me if she goes low carb and getting into ketosis unless the calming effect kicks in.
Folks who are serious about low low carbing with high high fats let me warn you. The stamina is unreal in nutritional ketosis and you will wear your friends out if you are out walking, etc I am finding. The kids are like let us stop and eating when working around the place. But it not a wired form of energy like from coffee or something but a very calm relaxing form of energy. Another plus is when I go to bed I tend to sleep like a log and and often longer that the normal six hours because the arthritis pain does not wake me up or have me so stiff I have to get up due to hurting.
Who is claiming that all calories are the same? Please point me to the statement.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
Well, umm, yes, no kidding - I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time too.GaleHawkins wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »you love to mock people who seem pretty damn successful for being clueless?
What are to talking about when you say "people who seem pretty damn successful"?
I would say one of them is Ed - a loss of 312 lb's seems pretty successful to me.
Why would I mock Ed who I do not know. I congrat Ed for that loss and all that set a goal and get even 10% the way there because they set a goal and did something positive for themselves. I think this thread may have related to some making a false statement that a calorie is a calorie and I posted links supporting a calorie is not always a calorie?
Been hauling hay today so my memory may be wrong on this subject being an old man per LLLE.
Except..a calorie is a calorie. Are you saying Ed and Psulemon (not to mention a few others who have posted in agreement with CICO and have lost significant amounts of weight/are at goal) are wrong in how they lost weight?
. I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time. Thinking a calorie is a calorie does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce. Thinking the earth is flat does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce.
Of course.
Just like everyone else does - ie CICO.
And you are right - thinking a calorie is a calorie does not make one lose or gain an ounce, nor does thinking the earth is flat ( rather random comparison) nor does thinking anything.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if they eat less than they burn over time, they lose weight.
And a calorie is a calorie like a mile is a mile, a kilogram is a kilogram, any unit of measurement is that unit of measurement.
I agree as long as you are not applying it to humans trying to diet and I posted research that a calorie is a calorie when applying it dieting is a known false statement today.
Please not I have no desire to change anyone's mind that a calorie is a calorie or that the earth is flat just because someone said they were true a long time ago.
All I ask is you and others stop making non factual statements and claiming they are factual. You are risking hurting people and this fine forum in doing so. Claiming the earth is flat or that all calories are the same when placed in the human body does not make the statements true.
It is a good thing I am in nutritional ketosis so I have the energy to keep typing without getting hungry. Thankfully LLLE has not sent any private messages for a few hours now calling me names. God help me if she goes low carb and getting into ketosis unless the calming effect kicks in.
Folks who are serious about low low carbing with high high fats let me warn you. The stamina is unreal in nutritional ketosis and you will wear your friends out if you are out walking, etc I am finding. The kids are like let us stop and eating when working around the place. But it not a wired form of energy like from coffee or something but a very calm relaxing form of energy. Another plus is when I go to bed I tend to sleep like a log and and often longer that the normal six hours because the arthritis pain does not wake me up or have me so stiff I have to get up due to hurting.
PLEASE ANSWER THIS
Galehawkins--Why does your ticker say ZERO pounds lost and 59 to go?-Have you lost ANY weight? If you have you might want to update that and if you haven't ....0 -
i often eat dinner later in the evening, and almost always have a snack right before i go to bed. it's budgeted into my daily calorie goal, and it hasn't caused any problems for me.0
-
NoelFigart1 wrote: »I think part of the problem is that there is a serious confusion between weight loss and optimum function.
The first is really, really simple (not necessarily easy, but simple).
Burn more than you consume.
The second is incredibly complex and has a lot of intersecting physical and emotional factors, which makes it hard to quantify, because medical science is kind of still in kindergarten in terms of a detailed understanding of optimal* human function.
If I ate 1700 calories of pure sugar every day, I would most certainly lose weight. Absolutely, no question. So CICO is right there.
Would I feel very good? Nope, and I don't have any blood sugar disorder that I know of, either. However, "feel good" is subjective and not very quantifiable. So, you're dealing with two different arguments: one easily mensurate and objective, the other difficult to quantify and subjective.
That said, that Gale person doesn't know how to science. Not even a little.
* Then, of course, the engineers would chime in, "Optimized for what?" which is a whole 'nother tangle of spaghetti, even if they ARE right.
That is the same argument people who claim it's not about calories use. It's an extreme example to try to prove a point they can't.
If you were locked in a room for a month and only given water and 1000 calories in sugar, you'd lose weight. Both muscle and fat but weight none the less.
My extreme example vs your extreme example, I win.
I THINK we were agreeing.... I thought, anyway, that ultimately weight loss is CICO....
0 -
Maybe he should try eating after 5, and in bed!indianwin2001 wrote: »PLEASE ANSWER THIS
Galehawkins--Why does your ticker say ZERO pounds lost and 59 to go?-Have you lost ANY weight? If you have you might want to update that and if you haven't ....
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »you love to mock people who seem pretty damn successful for being clueless?
What are to talking about when you say "people who seem pretty damn successful"?
I would say one of them is Ed - a loss of 312 lb's seems pretty successful to me.
Why would I mock Ed who I do not know. I congrat Ed for that loss and all that set a goal and get even 10% the way there because they set a goal and did something positive for themselves. I think this thread may have related to some making a false statement that a calorie is a calorie and I posted links supporting a calorie is not always a calorie?
Been hauling hay today so my memory may be wrong on this subject being an old man per LLLE.
When did you provide any links to "A calorie is not a calorie"? The only thing you posted was a google search. That is NOT science. There are a lot of wrong articles out there based on fitness myths. But in the end, if calories are equal, fat loss will be the same. What you seemingly don't understand or what you think all of us don't understand is that macronutrients (such as carbs, fat and protein) have different impacts on health and wellness. We all understand that proteins helps with muscle retention and fats/proteins help with satiety. I also understand that carbs provide energy.
And i will stand by my original statement that regardless of when you eat or how many times you eat, if calories are consistent, weight loss will be the same. What the OP has to understand is that the overall diet is what controls where the weight loss is coming from. It could be muscle, water, fat, tissue, etc... but that will be determined by total calories, training regimes and more.
But since I know you will want more, lets add some more science to this.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.ful
"Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet."
In that above study, weight loss difference in a LC diet could be contributed to increase glycogen depletion.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/diet-and-weight/
"Conventional wisdom says that since a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source, the best advice for weight control is simply to eat less and exercise more. Yet emerging research suggests that some foods and eating patterns may make it easier to keep calories in check, while others may make people more likely to overeat."
"When people eat controlled diets in laboratory studies, the percentage of calories from fat, protein, and carbohydrate do not seem to matter for weight loss."
And if you want one more good discussion of this.. here you go: http://www.biolayne.com/nutrition/is-a-calorie-truly-a-calorie/
So suggesting that all of us are wrong because your research is based off of Gary Taubes is ridiculous. First he is a journalist (not a nutritionist) and is well known for misinterpreting science. Here are three difference sources from real medical/nutritional experts that suggest otherwise and not by some journalist.0 -
^^^^^^GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »you love to mock people who seem pretty damn successful for being clueless?
What are to talking about when you say "people who seem pretty damn successful"?
I would say one of them is Ed - a loss of 312 lb's seems pretty successful to me.
Why would I mock Ed who I do not know. I congrat Ed for that loss and all that set a goal and get even 10% the way there because they set a goal and did something positive for themselves. I think this thread may have related to some making a false statement that a calorie is a calorie and I posted links supporting a calorie is not always a calorie?
Been hauling hay today so my memory may be wrong on this subject being an old man per LLLE.
When did you provide any links to "A calorie is not a calorie"? The only thing you posted was a google search. That is NOT science. There are a lot of wrong articles out there based on fitness myths. But in the end, if calories are equal, fat loss will be the same. What you seemingly don't understand or what you think all of us don't understand is that macronutrients (such as carbs, fat and protein) have different impacts on health and wellness. We all understand that proteins helps with muscle retention and fats/proteins help with satiety. I also understand that carbs provide energy.
And i will stand by my original statement that regardless of when you eat or how many times you eat, if calories are consistent, weight loss will be the same. What the OP has to understand is that the overall diet is what controls where the weight loss is coming from. It could be muscle, water, fat, tissue, etc... but that will be determined by total calories, training regimes and more.
But since I know you will want more, lets add some more science to this.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.ful
"Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet."
In that above study, weight loss difference in a LC diet could be contributed to increase glycogen depletion.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/diet-and-weight/
"Conventional wisdom says that since a calorie is a calorie, regardless of its source, the best advice for weight control is simply to eat less and exercise more. Yet emerging research suggests that some foods and eating patterns may make it easier to keep calories in check, while others may make people more likely to overeat."
"When people eat controlled diets in laboratory studies, the percentage of calories from fat, protein, and carbohydrate do not seem to matter for weight loss."
And if you want one more good discussion of this.. here you go: http://www.biolayne.com/nutrition/is-a-calorie-truly-a-calorie/
So suggesting that all of us are wrong because your research is based off of Gary Taubes is ridiculous. First he is a journalist (not a nutritionist) and is well known for misinterpreting science. Here are three difference sources from real medical/nutritional experts that suggest otherwise and not by some journalist.
0 -
indianwin2001 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
Well, umm, yes, no kidding - I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time too.GaleHawkins wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »you love to mock people who seem pretty damn successful for being clueless?
What are to talking about when you say "people who seem pretty damn successful"?
I would say one of them is Ed - a loss of 312 lb's seems pretty successful to me.
Why would I mock Ed who I do not know. I congrat Ed for that loss and all that set a goal and get even 10% the way there because they set a goal and did something positive for themselves. I think this thread may have related to some making a false statement that a calorie is a calorie and I posted links supporting a calorie is not always a calorie?
Been hauling hay today so my memory may be wrong on this subject being an old man per LLLE.
Except..a calorie is a calorie. Are you saying Ed and Psulemon (not to mention a few others who have posted in agreement with CICO and have lost significant amounts of weight/are at goal) are wrong in how they lost weight?
. I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time. Thinking a calorie is a calorie does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce. Thinking the earth is flat does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce.
Of course.
Just like everyone else does - ie CICO.
And you are right - thinking a calorie is a calorie does not make one lose or gain an ounce, nor does thinking the earth is flat ( rather random comparison) nor does thinking anything.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if they eat less than they burn over time, they lose weight.
And a calorie is a calorie like a mile is a mile, a kilogram is a kilogram, any unit of measurement is that unit of measurement.
I agree as long as you are not applying it to humans trying to diet and I posted research that a calorie is a calorie when applying it dieting is a known false statement today.
Please not I have no desire to change anyone's mind that a calorie is a calorie or that the earth is flat just because someone said they were true a long time ago.
All I ask is you and others stop making non factual statements and claiming they are factual. You are risking hurting people and this fine forum in doing so. Claiming the earth is flat or that all calories are the same when placed in the human body does not make the statements true.
It is a good thing I am in nutritional ketosis so I have the energy to keep typing without getting hungry. Thankfully LLLE has not sent any private messages for a few hours now calling me names. God help me if she goes low carb and getting into ketosis unless the calming effect kicks in.
Folks who are serious about low low carbing with high high fats let me warn you. The stamina is unreal in nutritional ketosis and you will wear your friends out if you are out walking, etc I am finding. The kids are like let us stop and eating when working around the place. But it not a wired form of energy like from coffee or something but a very calm relaxing form of energy. Another plus is when I go to bed I tend to sleep like a log and and often longer that the normal six hours because the arthritis pain does not wake me up or have me so stiff I have to get up due to hurting.
PLEASE ANSWER THIS
Galehawkins--Why does your ticker say ZERO pounds lost and 59 to go?-Have you lost ANY weight? If you have you might want to update that and if you haven't ....
For the record I don't agree with Galehawkins but regardless, his own weight loss or lack of weight loss does not effect the validity (or lack of validity) of his claims.
When someone makes a claim it's a good idea to dispute the claim if you disagree with it rather than questioning or attacking the person.
I don't see how Gale's weight loss has anything to do with whether or not his statements are correct.0 -
For the record I don't agree with Galehawkins but regardless, her own weight loss or lack of weight loss does not effect the validity (or lack of validity) of her claims.
When someone makes a claim it's a good idea to dispute the claim if you disagree with it rather than questioning or attacking the person.
I don't see how Gale's weight loss has anything to do with whether or not her statements are correct.
I agree.. one's weight loss doesn't determine knowledge.
0 -
As long as you don't suffer from acid reflux when eating too close to bedtime I see no problem when you eat....ever~!!0
-
indianwin2001 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
Well, umm, yes, no kidding - I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time too.GaleHawkins wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »BombshellPhoenix wrote: »you love to mock people who seem pretty damn successful for being clueless?
What are to talking about when you say "people who seem pretty damn successful"?
I would say one of them is Ed - a loss of 312 lb's seems pretty successful to me.
Why would I mock Ed who I do not know. I congrat Ed for that loss and all that set a goal and get even 10% the way there because they set a goal and did something positive for themselves. I think this thread may have related to some making a false statement that a calorie is a calorie and I posted links supporting a calorie is not always a calorie?
Been hauling hay today so my memory may be wrong on this subject being an old man per LLLE.
Except..a calorie is a calorie. Are you saying Ed and Psulemon (not to mention a few others who have posted in agreement with CICO and have lost significant amounts of weight/are at goal) are wrong in how they lost weight?
. I expect they lost weight because they ate fewer calories than they burned over time. Thinking a calorie is a calorie does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce. Thinking the earth is flat does NOT make one gain or lose an ounce.
Of course.
Just like everyone else does - ie CICO.
And you are right - thinking a calorie is a calorie does not make one lose or gain an ounce, nor does thinking the earth is flat ( rather random comparison) nor does thinking anything.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, if they eat less than they burn over time, they lose weight.
And a calorie is a calorie like a mile is a mile, a kilogram is a kilogram, any unit of measurement is that unit of measurement.
I agree as long as you are not applying it to humans trying to diet and I posted research that a calorie is a calorie when applying it dieting is a known false statement today.
Please not I have no desire to change anyone's mind that a calorie is a calorie or that the earth is flat just because someone said they were true a long time ago.
All I ask is you and others stop making non factual statements and claiming they are factual. You are risking hurting people and this fine forum in doing so. Claiming the earth is flat or that all calories are the same when placed in the human body does not make the statements true.
It is a good thing I am in nutritional ketosis so I have the energy to keep typing without getting hungry. Thankfully LLLE has not sent any private messages for a few hours now calling me names. God help me if she goes low carb and getting into ketosis unless the calming effect kicks in.
Folks who are serious about low low carbing with high high fats let me warn you. The stamina is unreal in nutritional ketosis and you will wear your friends out if you are out walking, etc I am finding. The kids are like let us stop and eating when working around the place. But it not a wired form of energy like from coffee or something but a very calm relaxing form of energy. Another plus is when I go to bed I tend to sleep like a log and and often longer that the normal six hours because the arthritis pain does not wake me up or have me so stiff I have to get up due to hurting.
PLEASE ANSWER THIS
Galehawkins--Why does your ticker say ZERO pounds lost and 59 to go?-Have you lost ANY weight? If you have you might want to update that and if you haven't ....
For the record I don't agree with Galehawkins but regardless, her own weight loss or lack of weight loss does not effect the validity (or lack of validity) of her claims.
When someone makes a claim it's a good idea to dispute the claim if you disagree with it rather than questioning or attacking the person.
I don't see how Gale's weight loss has anything to do with whether or not her statements are correct.
Gale is a dude. Carry on!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions