Took a Dip in the Cesspool
deansdad101
Posts: 644 Member
Recent discussions of the activities taking place in the "sandbox/litterbox/house of jerkitude" piqued my interest, against my better judgement, sent me to see if it really could be as bad as it was being portrayed.
News flash - it's WORSE!
OP came with a simple (non-threatening) post about a video/"documentary"(?) and was summarily taken out behind the woodshed for a good 'ol fashion whoopin' for having the gall to post something which questioned the "group speak".
She put up a gallant "fight" in an attempt to simply discuss a topic which questioned the gospel and the reaction was swift, massive, and flat out disgusting to witness.
Couldn't help myself but learned my lesson and won't be back any time soon. Can't wait for the reaction - {/donning my kevlar, pitchfork-proof vest}
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10013167/carb-loaded-documentary-film/p5
News flash - it's WORSE!
OP came with a simple (non-threatening) post about a video/"documentary"(?) and was summarily taken out behind the woodshed for a good 'ol fashion whoopin' for having the gall to post something which questioned the "group speak".
She put up a gallant "fight" in an attempt to simply discuss a topic which questioned the gospel and the reaction was swift, massive, and flat out disgusting to witness.
Couldn't help myself but learned my lesson and won't be back any time soon. Can't wait for the reaction - {/donning my kevlar, pitchfork-proof vest}
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10013167/carb-loaded-documentary-film/p5
0
Replies
-
*Hands deansdad hand made 100% coconut oil scrubby soap and a towel for a hot shower.* Looks like you could use it.... (That coconut oil scrubby soap is great for cleaning up oily grunge, btw.)
Also, it's exceedingly ironic that, after 5 pages of name-calling and mockery (and that doesn't even really include the posts that had their content removed), your post was the only one actually called out for ad hominems. I do agree with the fact that it does damage your point (especially when taken in isolation), but I also see your point about "when in Rome..."0 -
I'm so done with them.
The last go round I had just made me sick. I'll pop in, drop links to the groups, and PMs to the OP, and I'm done. I'm not stepping into Chernobyl and drinking the water any more. Those people are hostile and guano-crazy.0 -
Weight Loss Success
denies naysayers their narrative.
'Float Like a Butterfly Sting Like a Bee'
Plug this into your fav search engine:
Calorie Bullies Low-Carb Success0 -
Very glad I skipped that thread.0
-
It is such a strange phenomenon. The only thing I can figure is that people who say it "doesn't work" are mortified by the thought that a low carb WOE is better because they feel they wouldn't ever be able to break their own addiction. I can't figure why many people on the main boards are so threatened by it.0
-
It is such a strange phenomenon. The only thing I can figure is that people who say it "doesn't work" are mortified by the thought that a low carb WOE is better because they feel they wouldn't ever be able to break their own addiction. I can't figure why many people on the main boards are so threatened by it.
Anything that doesn't allow liberal (sorry, "moderate") doses of dominoes, subway, and Poptarts is "unsustainable", don'tcha know.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »It is such a strange phenomenon. The only thing I can figure is that people who say it "doesn't work" are mortified by the thought that a low carb WOE is better because they feel they wouldn't ever be able to break their own addiction. I can't figure why many people on the main boards are so threatened by it.
Anything that doesn't allow liberal (sorry, "moderate") doses of dominoes, subway, and Poptarts is "unsustainable", don'tcha know.
Oh, don't even get me started on the whole "the only way to succeed at a diet is to not say no to anything" thing.... Heaven forbid some people do better completely abstaining than just trying to eat a 1/4 of a piece of something.
And, heaven forbid you even think of suggesting that people could be addicted to a particular food or type of food. I kid you not, I had someone yell at me, because I mentioned that you can get the flu-like withdrawal symptoms, not unlike what occurs with withdrawal from certain drugs, when you cut out the heavily refined sugars. Evidently, things are only addictive if everyone experiences the same withdrawal symptoms, and if that withdrawal could kill you if you tried cutting it too fast. :wtf:0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »It is such a strange phenomenon. The only thing I can figure is that people who say it "doesn't work" are mortified by the thought that a low carb WOE is better because they feel they wouldn't ever be able to break their own addiction. I can't figure why many people on the main boards are so threatened by it.
Anything that doesn't allow liberal (sorry, "moderate") doses of dominoes, subway, and Poptarts is "unsustainable", don'tcha know.
When I was dog piled for suggesting ketchup wasn't a good, healthy food, I thought I was in the wrong place.0 -
Actually I think the moderation crowd feels superior because they eat the food we don't and have no problem with it. There really are lots of people who can eat chocolate chip ice cream and pizza and Twinkies in moderation and without difficulties like disease and malaise symptoms such as chronic pain, stiffness and fatigue.
When they overhear folks like us discussing our difficulties with foods such as these, they can't wait to pipe up that it's NO PROBLEM for them to eat this swill and therefore we must be a bunch of WEAKLINGS or LIARS or scientifically challenged GOOBERS.
Yup. I think it's the joy of condescending that brings out the usual braggarts who showcase pints of ice cream alongside their shirtless profile pics. Idiots.
The cynical side of me can't wait until the metabolisms and bodies of those people start revolting...
The hypocrisy still astounds me. They claim they don't restrict anything, except they do. They restrict calories, and they choose whether to eat a food based on whether it fits into their calorie and/or macro goal (and when it doesn't, they -- *gasp!* -- don't eat it!). It's the exact same behavior, just with difference criteria for whether something is worth eating. Yet, such an idea is completely alien to them.0 -
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt...0
-
BS, et al;baconslave wrote: »Denial isn't just a river in Egypt...
I can "understand" (not accept) the hypocrisy, condescension, piling on, and crowd speak mentality but it's the "denial" that really makes the least sense of all.
While it's a generalization, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the majority of the most vocal haters spend more time in the gym than they do in a library (or school).
Proudly professing that the number of "reps", miles on a treadmill, or latest marathon time trumps pretty much anything else in life isn't my standard but neither does it concern me that it is their's.
What I just don't "git" though, is WHY, with their stated goals, they persist in acting against their OWN self-interest when it comes to preparing themselves to maximize their performance. By placing greater emphasis on demonizing than they do on learning about that which might just be their best option, is it not reasonable to question their motivation?
With the notable exception of the couple individuals that post here while at the same time being heavily involved in the exercise world (and proud of it), most of them wouldn't be caught dead here, let alone actually learning any of "science".
"My trainer says...." is pretty much the limit of intellectual curiosity.
Phinney and Volek probably have the longest, most credible, objective, and scientifically beyond reproach, set of "studies" spanning now over 20 years, of the effects of NK on athletic performance and almost without exception, performance is IMPROVED vis a vis the "typical" low fat/high protein/high carb "traditional" athletes diet (conventional wisdom diet).
Denying (or more probably remaining ignorant of) the science, simply because it questions that which "everybody knows" would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic - 'it's more important to me to "bash and belittle" those who attempt to question my beliefs than it is to learn about that which might improve what I care about more than life itself".
"Denial" for the sake of maintaining one's status in the "crowd", while simultaneously sacrificing the potential gains in that which one professes to be their holy grail is (fill in the blank).
0 -
deansdad101 wrote: »
BS, et al;baconslave wrote: »Denial isn't just a river in Egypt...
I can "understand" (not accept) the hypocrisy, condescension, piling on, and crowd speak mentality but it's the "denial" that really makes the least sense of all.
While it's a generalization, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that the majority of the most vocal haters spend more time in the gym than they do in a library (or school).
Proudly professing that the number of "reps", miles on a treadmill, or latest marathon time trumps pretty much anything else in life isn't my standard but neither does it concern me that it is their's.
What I just don't "git" though, is WHY, with their stated goals, they persist in acting against their OWN self-interest when it comes to preparing themselves to maximize their performance. By placing greater emphasis on demonizing than they do on learning about that which might just be their best option, is it not reasonable to question their motivation?
With the notable exception of the couple individuals that post here while at the same time being heavily involved in the exercise world (and proud of it), most of them wouldn't be caught dead here, let alone actually learning any of "science".
"My trainer says...." is pretty much the limit of intellectual curiosity.
Phinney and Volek probably have the longest, most credible, objective, and scientifically beyond reproach, set of "studies" spanning now over 20 years, of the effects of NK on athletic performance and almost without exception, performance is IMPROVED vis a vis the "typical" low fat/high protein/high carb "traditional" athletes diet (conventional wisdom diet).
Denying (or more probably remaining ignorant of) the science, simply because it questions that which "everybody knows" would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic - 'it's more important to me to "bash and belittle" those who attempt to question my beliefs than it is to learn about that which might improve what I care about more than life itself".
"Denial" for the sake of maintaining one's status in the "crowd", while simultaneously sacrificing the potential gains in that which one professes to be their holy grail is (fill in the blank).
Can I just say that I
your rants?
As for the stuff about Phinney and Volek, I don't think I've actually seen them mentioned in the main forums. Usually it's Taubes or Atkins that get mentioned, as they tend to be people's gateway into NK/LCHF, which are relatively easy targets (in fairness, Taubes' books could use some more fact-checking and validation from what I've seen).
Of course, none of that really matters when that "but you NEED carbs for energy/brain function!" crowd start chiming in....0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Actually I think the moderation crowd feels superior because they eat the food we don't and have no problem with it. There really are lots of people who can eat chocolate chip ice cream and pizza and Twinkies in moderation and without difficulties like disease and malaise symptoms such as chronic pain, stiffness and fatigue.
When they overhear folks like us discussing our difficulties with foods such as these, they can't wait to pipe up that it's NO PROBLEM for them to eat this swill and therefore we must be a bunch of WEAKLINGS or LIARS or scientifically challenged GOOBERS.
Yup. I think it's the joy of condescending that brings out the usual braggarts who showcase pints of ice cream alongside their shirtless profile pics. Idiots.
The cynical side of me can't wait until the metabolisms and bodies of those people start revolting...
The hypocrisy still astounds me. They claim they don't restrict anything, except they do. They restrict calories, and they choose whether to eat a food based on whether it fits into their calorie and/or macro goal (and when it doesn't, they -- *gasp!* -- don't eat it!). It's the exact same behavior, just with difference criteria for whether something is worth eating. Yet, such an idea is completely alien to them.
Remember johnnythan? Ever look at his diet? It was depressing. The occasional Poptart, sure. But it was mostly Atkins frozen foods. This as he was railing against ANYONE who dared to say that they were trying to eat lowercarb, or cleaner or or or. And there he was eating atkins meals.
I think it's important to remember: most folks here are ONLY looking at a number on a scale, or in the case of the shirtless mafia, some magical BF%. They don't seem to care what they are doing to themselves, long term.
Again, remembering johnnythan, when we once argued, he said: IIFYM, I said, great, but what about everything else. He said "what else is there". I said MICROS for starters! He declared that if you fit your macros (whatever you set them at) the rest will take care of itself.
oy.0 -
And this is why I don't talk about my diet with high-carbers. I'm tired of hearing how I'm wrecking my health. All measures of health have improved (weight, energy, skin, LDL), yet I'm going to drop dead any minute if I keep eating bacon. My brain is starving for carbs? My brain loves ketones!0
-
OH! I just sent a PM yesterday to a poor soul out there in "Non Traditional land" thinking he could post on the forums!! I should check on the poor thing!0
