Fed Up Documentary
Options
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »
so after 60 the laws of math and physics cease to apply?
at the end of the day it is still CICO; however, you just may have to adjust the out side of the equation ….
I would disagree with the first statement and would agree with the second. I have always held that position. Some of you apparently have trouble interpreting what I have said.
0 -
There are 16 pages of this thread and after reading through the first 2 and not seeing any correction of 'worlded and twirled" to "whirled and twirled", I thought I"d put my 2 cents in.
My apologies if anyone on the other 14 pages corrected it before I did. It seems that everyone was correcting something about the original post and I felt the need to get on the bandwagon.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Sorry, but as usual, you're incorrect. Sugar has been cheap since the 1700s, and wass considered a necessary staple food by the 1800s.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »I don't get sugar crashes. Probably because my body uses sugar to do awesome things like this:
I can turn sugar into 4 hours of marathon fun! I'm eating gingerbread toxins here
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
The "rules" of "calories in-calories out" work well for the majority of people in their youth (and who exercise). HOWEVER, it just doesn't work very well for the typical post-menopausal woman, because the reduced number of calories she needs to shrink her fat deposits results in malnutrition,
Funny, this 5 years post menopausal woman is doing just fine losing weight and fat deposits and I am healthier than I have been in years. I follow CICO with a touch of IIFYM to help me find the best way to distribute the calories in part of the equation.
And do you eat a lot of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food? If that's the case, then think of how much better you would do with a better diet. Since you indicate on your ticker that you still have about 75 pounds to go, you were likely a lot bigger than OP to start with.
That;s a lot of assumptions. And again, I did/do very well with IIFYM.
Now, I am not disagreeing that post-menopausal women often do better on higher fat/higher protein and low'ish carbs. But you are making a very big leap there - the poster is losing weight and it is rather presumptuous to infer that she would do better using a different methodology. The biggest key to weight loss is adherence.
I'm sincerely happy for those who have had the luxury of eating whatever they chose IIFYM. I have many, many years of dieting behind me--losing, regaining, losing, regaining even more, etc. I never found calorie counting ALONE to be successful for any length of time. (Why do you think there is such a huge failure rate in keeping the body fat off?) For those like me, a multi-factorial approach is often the most successful and, with my current plan, I have avoided regain for the longest period in my adult life (four years) and my program is one that has yielded tremendous health benefits for me as well. I will be able to stay on this program for the rest of my life. I think the regain threads in the forums to be pretty sad and I just attempt to show people that there really is a different and better way FOR SOME PEOPLE who are experiencing a lot of failure. You can't count it successful, if you quickly regain what was lost as soon as you leave the low calorie plan. And the reason why many people leave the low calorie plan is because they are malnourished from only paying attention to "calories in - calories out".
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
Ok, going to address these one at a time.
I lost more than that, doing the same thing (except meat). And has been noted - I am 47. I lost the weight when I was 45/46.
But, no doubt you recognize that metabolism slows significantly with each decade of life?
0 -
This thread really blew up while I was out running. Honestly, I'm probably wasting my time running because 1.) I'm a man, 2.) I'm not menopausal, 3.) I'm in my twenties and 4.) I have a fast metabolism, therefore I can think about losing weight and poof it happens! Because science.
Well, you certainly win the "silly sarcasm" award.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
Ok, going to address these one at a time.
I lost more than that, doing the same thing (except meat). And has been noted - I am 47. I lost the weight when I was 45/46.
But, no doubt you recognize that metabolism slows significantly with each decade of life?
Yes, to a degree - but your BMR decreases by only by about 100 cals every 10 years.
The main issue is that we often get less active as we get older.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »It just occurred to me that it's very troubling that you have over 3,000 posts on the forums. It doesn't seem like you really know what you're talking about at all and to think you've spread that much misinformation is kind of scary...
Now, I have the information that it took to make me successful. You can argue with it but it makes little sense to argue with my success and what I attribute it to. Many of you are apparently incensed for some reason that I cannot fathom. Is it because I don't adhere to your religion?
You attribute your success to your education and hard work. You've attributed the success of others here to age and good genetics (fast metabolism). Can you see how that could look bad?
The fact remains that it is harder for some people to lose weight than others. Women have a harder time than men (women have a lower lean body mass than do men and burn fewer calories--but there is a limit as to how low any adult can go without sacrificing health). Obese people have a harder time than those who are merely "overweight" (it takes many fewer calories to maintain body fat than lean tissue). The loss of progesterone, in particular, causes estrogen to run unopposed and estrogen "loves" to build body fat (progesterone stimulates the metabolism and promotes leanness). Estrogen even blocks the uptake of iodine and that, in itself, can cause goiter if the diet is iodine deficient (which tends to be the case since our soils in many parts of the country are iodine-poor). (Progesterone enhances the uptake of iodine, by the way.) Most obese women are leptin-resistant. Since women already have 2 to 3 times as much leptin as men, even at the same body fat level, it is easy to see why obese women become leptin resistant and why they may have to address that. That has a great bearing on body fat gain or loss. I could go on and on but I think you can get the idea.
Wow, with such vast knowledge you would think one would be able to figure out how to do something as simple as posting a picture on the internet.
I guess post menopausal woman can't do that either…
No need to be insulting. I don't know how, but that is because I haven't been terribly motivated to learn how. I have confidence that, were I to be sufficiently motivated, I would learn how in short order. But first I'd have to purchase a digital camera. Maybe I'll ask for one for Christmas.
you are the one insulting woman of all ages by claiming those who are post menopausal can't lose weight via calorie deficit, and then turning around critiquing other woman that have had said success and then saying "oh that is because they are in their 40's"…..
I just turned your own argument against you …but I guess you do not like that...
Nonsensical argument.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
The "rules" of "calories in-calories out" work well for the majority of people in their youth (and who exercise). HOWEVER, it just doesn't work very well for the typical post-menopausal woman, because the reduced number of calories she needs to shrink her fat deposits results in malnutrition,
Funny, this 5 years post menopausal woman is doing just fine losing weight and fat deposits and I am healthier than I have been in years. I follow CICO with a touch of IIFYM to help me find the best way to distribute the calories in part of the equation.
And do you eat a lot of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food? If that's the case, then think of how much better you would do with a better diet. Since you indicate on your ticker that you still have about 75 pounds to go, you were likely a lot bigger than OP to start with.
That;s a lot of assumptions. And again, I did/do very well with IIFYM.
Now, I am not disagreeing that post-menopausal women often do better on higher fat/higher protein and low'ish carbs. But you are making a very big leap there - the poster is losing weight and it is rather presumptuous to infer that she would do better using a different methodology. The biggest key to weight loss is adherence.
I'm sincerely happy for those who have had the luxury of eating whatever they chose IIFYM. I have many, many years of dieting behind me--losing, regaining, losing, regaining even more, etc. I never found calorie counting ALONE to be successful for any length of time. (Why do you think there is such a huge failure rate in keeping the body fat off?) For those like me, a multi-factorial approach is often the most successful and, with my current plan, I have avoided regain for the longest period in my adult life (four years) and my program is one that has yielded tremendous health benefits for me as well. I will be able to stay on this program for the rest of my life. I think the regain threads in the forums to be pretty sad and I just attempt to show people that there really is a different and better way FOR SOME PEOPLE who are experiencing a lot of failure. You can't count it successful, if you quickly regain what was lost as soon as you leave the low calorie plan. And the reason why many people leave the low calorie plan is because they are malnourished from only paying attention to "calories in - calories out".
First of all, IIFYM is not about eating whatever you chose. Heck, keto can even be IIFYM - its just those macros will look different than, for example, mine.
I am not disagreeing, and have never disagreed, with the premise that you should look to more than simply CICO.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
so after 60 the laws of math and physics cease to apply?
at the end of the day it is still CICO; however, you just may have to adjust the out side of the equation ….
I would disagree with the first statement and would agree with the second. I have always held that position. Some of you apparently have trouble interpreting what I have said.
I think the main issue (and this is just my opinion based on reading many of your posts) is that you tend to make what appear to be blanket statements and dismiss people who do not fit into a criteria, and in fact look to find ways that people who do not have issues do not.
While I may not agree with a lot of your more acute level advice/conclusions, your general premise is not the issue - being, you need to be in a deficit, your maintenance calories tend to be lower the older you are, tweaks to macros may help certain groups of people. I have already stated earlier, that, for example, post menopausal women may do better on higher protein and fats and lowish carbs. However, when I was brought up as an example of someone who does well and can lose weight on more 'standard', for want of a better word, macros, and based on the questions you were asking, you seemed to be doing your best to exclude me from the 'norm'. I am not a special snowflake. I am a 'normal' woman with a desk job in her late 40's whose only additional activity is lifting weights. I do not have anything special about my metabolism and I have been quite overweight at one point.
I suppose the point of this post is to point out that, if you were less prone to make what look like blanket statements and generalization, I doubt you would get as much debate.
Note: not trying to be patronizing or anything - not sure if it reads that way but it is not my intent.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
I'm 34 and eat whatever I please, and I'm in the best shape of my life. I'm an anomaly too I guess?
Well, good for you! You are not a post-menopausal, obese women.
Quit moving the goalposts.
How is that "moving the goalposts"? I have always been discussing post-menopausal, obese women.
You've blamed everything but Obama for your weight gain. It's like playing whack-a-mole with your layered misinformation.
No, I blame my previous lack of information. Now I know how to be healthy. Do you really want to argue with my success?
Apparently you are trying to argue with mine...or at least imply I am special. I can assure you, while I am fortunate not to have metabolic issues and to be healthy, I have not had my own fair share of set backs in my past.
But you see, I am NOT arguing with your success. To the contrary, I am happy that you are here inspiring women to be as healthy and fit as they can be. I will dig up the study on the 40% and give some more recent scientific speculations as to why (I won't have the chance this evening though--I've got to run).
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
A lot of cardio can actually be counter-productive to the aging female body. Cardio is "catabolic"--that is, it tends to be decrease lean body mass. Weight-lifting, on the other hand is "anabolic"--that is, it tends to increase lean body mass. Which one do you think is better for increasing the flagging metabolism of the aging woman? I actually don't do a lot of cardio--just enough to keep my cardiovascular system healthy. She may have a better metabolism than I have to start with--many, many women are not so fortunate. It is estimated that about 40% of post-menopausal women have thyroid problems (as do I).
So first you infer that she has a rigorous training schedule most can or won't do as a reason she's able to be as she is. But now that it is "revealed" she does something that is actually average and doable, it's got to be her "better" metabolism (insinuating that it's something she's always had)???
:laugh:
Okay then.
Was she ever more than 20-30 pounds overweight?
I believe she lost about 40-45 lbs.
I think that some weight-lifters believe that you can lose all the body fat you want to with just weight-lifting alone. I have yet to see that happen with me but I certainly have improved A LOT.
Its not that some weight-lifters believe that you can - you actually can. Now, due to your arthritis, you may not be able to rely on it without additional non-resistance training and keep your calories up high enough to get better nutrition, but it certainly can be done.
Yes--I understand that, Sara. Thanks for the advice--I honestly appreciate it. Perhaps I could PM you sometime for some specific recommendations? Even though I am a "healthy" weight (for my age) right now, I would like to lose another 20-30 pounds and I'm finding that even though I am not gaining body fat (a first for me) and I believe I am improving my musculature VERY slowly, I am still not losing the last of the body fat deposits. I would really appreciate some help from an expert.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
I'm 34 and eat whatever I please, and I'm in the best shape of my life. I'm an anomaly too I guess?
Well, good for you! You are not a post-menopausal, obese women.
Quit moving the goalposts.
How is that "moving the goalposts"? I have always been discussing post-menopausal, obese women.
You've blamed everything but Obama for your weight gain. It's like playing whack-a-mole with your layered misinformation.
No, I blame my previous lack of information. Now I know how to be healthy. Do you really want to argue with my success?
Apparently you are trying to argue with mine...or at least imply I am special. I can assure you, while I am fortunate not to have metabolic issues and to be healthy, I have not had my own fair share of set backs in my past.
But you see, I am NOT arguing with your success. To the contrary, I am happy that you are here inspiring women to be as healthy and fit as they can be. I will dig up the study on the 40% and give some more recent scientific speculations as to why (I won't have the chance this evening though--I've got to run).
Thank you. I was making the point (badly) that you were making out as though I was genetically lucky, or not the 'norm'. Not that you were not saying that I was successful.
I would like to see them (and not to pick holes - just to see the stats out of curiosity).0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
A lot of cardio can actually be counter-productive to the aging female body. Cardio is "catabolic"--that is, it tends to be decrease lean body mass. Weight-lifting, on the other hand is "anabolic"--that is, it tends to increase lean body mass. Which one do you think is better for increasing the flagging metabolism of the aging woman? I actually don't do a lot of cardio--just enough to keep my cardiovascular system healthy. She may have a better metabolism than I have to start with--many, many women are not so fortunate. It is estimated that about 40% of post-menopausal women have thyroid problems (as do I).
So first you infer that she has a rigorous training schedule most can or won't do as a reason she's able to be as she is. But now that it is "revealed" she does something that is actually average and doable, it's got to be her "better" metabolism (insinuating that it's something she's always had)???
:laugh:
Okay then.
Was she ever more than 20-30 pounds overweight?
I believe she lost about 40-45 lbs.
I think that some weight-lifters believe that you can lose all the body fat you want to with just weight-lifting alone. I have yet to see that happen with me but I certainly have improved A LOT.
Its not that some weight-lifters believe that you can - you actually can. Now, due to your arthritis, you may not be able to rely on it without additional non-resistance training and keep your calories up high enough to get better nutrition, but it certainly can be done.
Yes--I understand that, Sara. Thanks for the advice--I honestly appreciate it. Perhaps I could PM you sometime for some specific recommendations? Even though I am a "healthy" weight (for my age) right now, I would like to lose another 20-30 pounds and I'm finding that even though I am not gaining body fat (a first for me) and I believe I am improving my musculature VERY slowly, I am still not losing the last of the body fat deposits. I would really appreciate some help from an expert.
Please feel free to PM me, I would be happy to help. There are ways to work around limitations that people have. I would never expect someone to be as 'into' it as I am, but resistance training has so many benefits to us. The main thing is to find something you enjoy - or at least dislike the least and can do regularly.
0 -
I'm so glad you've stuck around all these years to ensure that everyone can see that no number of excuses will ever make it ok to suck. You're like the living cautionary tale of MFP.SanteMulberry wrote: »This thread really blew up while I was out running. Honestly, I'm probably wasting my time running because 1.) I'm a man, 2.) I'm not menopausal, 3.) I'm in my twenties and 4.) I have a fast metabolism, therefore I can think about losing weight and poof it happens! Because science.
Well, you certainly win the "silly sarcasm" award.
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I'm 42 and I can say with all certainty that it's a lot harder to lose weight now then it was when I was in my twenties!
I lost the weight after both my pregnancies and my body bounced back and looked like it did before babies. Now I've lost weight again and body does not look the same as it did back then!!
I find it easier...I have more knowledge and patience and discipline now.
Agrees with it being easier now. At 45 years of age and almost 95 pounds lost in under 3 years, I have utilized the power of informed decision making as my daily tool in remaining fit and getting fitter every day.
0 -
Processed crap is the enemy. It also wastes a lot of money! Make sure you get your protein somehow though. Without that, you'll be weak and hungry.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions