General Weight Loss Advice Beyond Calories In and Calories Out
Replies
-
0 -
0
-
Yes it does.
If someone tells you that you're being offensive, the proper response is to say "sorry" and not to defend yourself by attacking the person you're offending.
Learn to have a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners. These things will get you far in life.
Really.....?
Wow. Just wow.
Just because somebody has offended you does not mean said person has a duty to apologize to you. It also does not mean that person is trying to offend you, or that their words were even offensive. It just means they are communicating in a way that you don't like, or they are saying something you don't want to hear.
By the way, while you're pointing that finger at whomever offended you, and while you are pointing that finger at me telling me to have "a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners," there are three more fingers pointing back at you.
There is nothing wrong with discussions, heated discussions, arguments, and pointing out when someone is giving incorrect information or making blanket statements about the right and wrong way to do eat, exercise, etc.
Something I never understand in this kind of arguments… and this is a genuine question, by the way.
If you did not want to offend the person, why wouldn't you apologise if they said they were offended? Refusing, from my point of view, just makes you sound antagonistic. I don't see any added value from it. If anything, it is counterproductive to the debate, as it moves the discussion on a more personal level distracting from the arguments and facts at hand.
Is it because you are afraid it would imply the other person is right?0 -
Haha! I thought you might appreciate it.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't understand why the OP is getting so much hostility. She isn't advocating some kind of quack "magic foods" myth or arguing against CICO. She's saying that just parroting "Calories in, Calories out, end of story!!!" is completely unhelpful to people who are struggling with weight loss. Maintaining a CICO strategy over the period of time required to safely and healthily lose even ten pounds is CHALLENGING. Yes, success will biologically come down to CICO, but these long term disciplines are largely a mental game, not a "just don't do it" game.
I think OP's tips are good ones (largely common sense). However, I don't agree that there's some distinction between a mental game and a "just don't do it" game. I see people asking how to avoid going over their calories, and to be honest I find this kind of difficult to understand. You just don't. You plan what you are going to eat and eat that. Sure, it's easier if what you eat is more filling (that seems kind of obvious, doesn't it?) and takes into account when you tend to feel hungry, but ultimately it IS a don't do it game if you decide to count calories or follow some other strategy.
For example, if your goal is 1600 and you are routinely going over 1600, you need to stop that and eat to your limit. I'm not saying I never go over my limit, but it's always a choice to do so or not. Similarly, if you pick some other strategy, like IF or cutting carbs or doing paleo or whatever, there are other things you just don't do that happen to have the side effect for those for whom they are successful of cutting calories.
What am I missing here?
First of all thank you for being so clear. This is so far the only post that actually made me understand the other side to the debate.
I agree that in the end, you need to face the fact that the only real solution is staying under your calorie goal. I think, however, that especially beginners and people with little knowledge of dieting and nutrition could find it helpful to read through tips such as the ones the OP posted. Obviously, one person's tips may not work for another person. Although, I do think that the OP's aim was to allow people to debate what had and had not worked for them so that newcomers could find ideas and help in these tips.
For instance, one thing I would have never thought of a year ago is to favour foods with low calories but large volumes to calorie-dense but low-volume foods. And it does work for me! Someone may find the opposite is true, but the tip may still help someone who had not thought of it.
I think this is what people are seeing as advantageous int he OP's post, whereas others are taking it as a blanket statement to apply to everyone, when I think the OP herself stated was not her intention.0 -
Most people apologize when they find out they've hurt someone they didn't intend to hurt. It's usually followed with an explanation or with "It was wrong of me. You didn't deserve that."GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Yes it does.
If someone tells you that you're being offensive, the proper response is to say "sorry" and not to defend yourself by attacking the person you're offending.
Learn to have a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners. These things will get you far in life.
Really.....?
Wow. Just wow.
Just because somebody has offended you does not mean said person has a duty to apologize to you. It also does not mean that person is trying to offend you, or that their words were even offensive. It just means they are communicating in a way that you don't like, or they are saying something you don't want to hear.
By the way, while you're pointing that finger at whomever offended you, and while you are pointing that finger at me telling me to have "a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners," there are three more fingers pointing back at you.
There is nothing wrong with discussions, heated discussions, arguments, and pointing out when someone is giving incorrect information or making blanket statements about the right and wrong way to do eat, exercise, etc.
Something I never understand in this kind of arguments… and this is a genuine question, by the way.
If you did not want to offend the person, why wouldn't you apologise if they said they were offended? Refusing, from my point of view, just makes you sound antagonistic. I don't see any added value from it. If anything, it is counterproductive to the debate, as it moves the discussion on a more personal level distracting from the arguments and facts at hand.
Is it because you are afraid it would imply the other person is right?
Most people are not going about their lives trying to hurt others and really ARE sorry when they do.0 -
Most people apologize when they find out they've hurt someone they didn't intend to hurt. It's usually followed with an explanation or with "It was wrong of me. You didn't deserve that."GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Yes it does.
If someone tells you that you're being offensive, the proper response is to say "sorry" and not to defend yourself by attacking the person you're offending.
Learn to have a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners. These things will get you far in life.
Really.....?
Wow. Just wow.
Just because somebody has offended you does not mean said person has a duty to apologize to you. It also does not mean that person is trying to offend you, or that their words were even offensive. It just means they are communicating in a way that you don't like, or they are saying something you don't want to hear.
By the way, while you're pointing that finger at whomever offended you, and while you are pointing that finger at me telling me to have "a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners," there are three more fingers pointing back at you.
There is nothing wrong with discussions, heated discussions, arguments, and pointing out when someone is giving incorrect information or making blanket statements about the right and wrong way to do eat, exercise, etc.
Something I never understand in this kind of arguments… and this is a genuine question, by the way.
If you did not want to offend the person, why wouldn't you apologise if they said they were offended? Refusing, from my point of view, just makes you sound antagonistic. I don't see any added value from it. If anything, it is counterproductive to the debate, as it moves the discussion on a more personal level distracting from the arguments and facts at hand.
Is it because you are afraid it would imply the other person is right?
Most people are not going about their lives trying to hurt others and really ARE sorry when they do.
Oh yes, I understand that. I meant the argument "People are too sensitive. I don't owe you an apology if I offended you." or the likes. Since if you hit someone sensitivities it implies you hurt them?
As in, why not just say, "I am sorry if I offended you, let me explain my argument in a different way."0 -
OP--an idea from another member which seems to resonate is eat at maintenance for 5 days and eat your deficit for 2. The idea is to be restrictive for 2 versus 7 days. Mild PITA everyday versus 2 days of greater discipline or so the story goes. Seems to work pretty well for some folks. Best of luck everybody.0
-
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I have to side with the OP here. Yes, when it comes to losing weight, the only defining element of it is CICO. However, tips like those the OP are posting can be useful to help people stick to CICO and persevere till the end. More importantly, it can help them to change their lifestyle, which is necessary to a certain extent to maintain.
That's basically what kgeyser said, but like she said its an issue of what works for weight loss vs. what behavior tips might help someone do what they need to do to stick to CICO. The problem is when people seem to think that what worked for them will necessarily work for someone else or that because something did not work for them it cannot work for someone else.
What rubbed me the wrong way a bit about OP's post (although I thought the tips were generally sensible and well-intentioned) is that it suggested that someone not succeeding at losing weight was stupid and couldn't think of these things.It's not about debating CICO; it's about giving tips that could be helpful if you are having trouble staying within your calorie goals.
Yes, this is true and perhaps I misread the tone.So, I am going to throw here a couple of other tips:
- You don't have to give up your favourite food or meal. You just have to fit it within your daily goal. Try an alternative recipe, or learn to make it yourself if it was a processed or pre-made food.
- Find a type of exercise you enjoy. There is nothing worse than putting yourself through an exercise routine you hate.
- DO consider your macros. Even if you are in it just to look good, it will be helpful on the long run.
I like these. I'd add:
--It never has to be all or nothing. That Chicago-style pizza from Pequod (excellent place) probably will never fit easily in my daily calories doesn't mean I can never have it, it's just a rare treat. It's also not a "bad food," just an indulgent one for occasional indulgences (which I don't personally call cheat days, but also do not think dooms one to failure).
--You might not enjoy everything right away--lots of exercise seems unpleasant or uncomfortable when you are out of shape or just don't yet have confidence. Give it a real try or keep coming back to it, you might change your mind. Similarly, try to have an open mind about foods, and try lots of different veggies and ways to cook them.
--Think about how what you are eating makes you feel, and if you lack energy or get hungry and specific times of the day, don't be afraid to try new things and change things up. It's about what works for you.
And again all of these are based on what worked for me. They may not work for everyone or even for me always--I know that I don't have it all figured out.
0 -
Offend, hurt, whatever.GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Most people apologize when they find out they've hurt someone they didn't intend to hurt. It's usually followed with an explanation or with "It was wrong of me. You didn't deserve that."GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Yes it does.
If someone tells you that you're being offensive, the proper response is to say "sorry" and not to defend yourself by attacking the person you're offending.
Learn to have a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners. These things will get you far in life.
Really.....?
Wow. Just wow.
Just because somebody has offended you does not mean said person has a duty to apologize to you. It also does not mean that person is trying to offend you, or that their words were even offensive. It just means they are communicating in a way that you don't like, or they are saying something you don't want to hear.
By the way, while you're pointing that finger at whomever offended you, and while you are pointing that finger at me telling me to have "a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners," there are three more fingers pointing back at you.
There is nothing wrong with discussions, heated discussions, arguments, and pointing out when someone is giving incorrect information or making blanket statements about the right and wrong way to do eat, exercise, etc.
Something I never understand in this kind of arguments… and this is a genuine question, by the way.
If you did not want to offend the person, why wouldn't you apologise if they said they were offended? Refusing, from my point of view, just makes you sound antagonistic. I don't see any added value from it. If anything, it is counterproductive to the debate, as it moves the discussion on a more personal level distracting from the arguments and facts at hand.
Is it because you are afraid it would imply the other person is right?
Most people are not going about their lives trying to hurt others and really ARE sorry when they do.
Oh yes, I understand that. I meant the argument "People are too sensitive. I don't owe you an apology if I offended you." or the likes. Since if you hit someone sensitivities it implies you hurt them?
As in, why not just say, "I am sorry if I offended you, let me explain my argument in a different way."
We've all hurt people without trying to. Many of us have hurt people when we were trying to. If we regret the offense/hurt, we apologize.
It's human nature to apologize when you're sorry. All languages, cultures, etc.
0 -
-
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Yes it does.
If someone tells you that you're being offensive, the proper response is to say "sorry" and not to defend yourself by attacking the person you're offending.
Learn to have a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners. These things will get you far in life.
Really.....?
Wow. Just wow.
Just because somebody has offended you does not mean said person has a duty to apologize to you. It also does not mean that person is trying to offend you, or that their words were even offensive. It just means they are communicating in a way that you don't like, or they are saying something you don't want to hear.
By the way, while you're pointing that finger at whomever offended you, and while you are pointing that finger at me telling me to have "a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners," there are three more fingers pointing back at you.
There is nothing wrong with discussions, heated discussions, arguments, and pointing out when someone is giving incorrect information or making blanket statements about the right and wrong way to do eat, exercise, etc.
Something I never understand in this kind of arguments… and this is a genuine question, by the way.
If you did not want to offend the person, why wouldn't you apologise if they said they were offended? Refusing, from my point of view, just makes you sound antagonistic. I don't see any added value from it. If anything, it is counterproductive to the debate, as it moves the discussion on a more personal level distracting from the arguments and facts at hand.
Is it because you are afraid it would imply the other person is right?
A person apologizes for doing something wrong. If the other person is offended and I said nothing wrong, such as name call or attack their character or yell at them, then they are offended for their own reasons. It's their stuff and not mine, and they need to look at their reaction.
If I say something mean or stepped over the line, or I yelled at you, even if I didn't realize any of those thing were offensive at the time and you call me on it, I will apologize.
As for your last question, I don't think right or wrong plays into apologizing, because someone can be mean and still be right, and someone can be nice and still be wrong.
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Most people apologize when they find out they've hurt someone they didn't intend to hurt. It's usually followed with an explanation or with "It was wrong of me. You didn't deserve that."GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Yes it does.
If someone tells you that you're being offensive, the proper response is to say "sorry" and not to defend yourself by attacking the person you're offending.
Learn to have a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners. These things will get you far in life.
Really.....?
Wow. Just wow.
Just because somebody has offended you does not mean said person has a duty to apologize to you. It also does not mean that person is trying to offend you, or that their words were even offensive. It just means they are communicating in a way that you don't like, or they are saying something you don't want to hear.
By the way, while you're pointing that finger at whomever offended you, and while you are pointing that finger at me telling me to have "a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners," there are three more fingers pointing back at you.
There is nothing wrong with discussions, heated discussions, arguments, and pointing out when someone is giving incorrect information or making blanket statements about the right and wrong way to do eat, exercise, etc.
Something I never understand in this kind of arguments… and this is a genuine question, by the way.
If you did not want to offend the person, why wouldn't you apologise if they said they were offended? Refusing, from my point of view, just makes you sound antagonistic. I don't see any added value from it. If anything, it is counterproductive to the debate, as it moves the discussion on a more personal level distracting from the arguments and facts at hand.
Is it because you are afraid it would imply the other person is right?
Most people are not going about their lives trying to hurt others and really ARE sorry when they do.
Oh yes, I understand that. I meant the argument "People are too sensitive. I don't owe you an apology if I offended you." or the likes. Since if you hit someone sensitivities it implies you hurt them?
As in, why not just say, "I am sorry if I offended you, let me explain my argument in a different way."
I'm not following the back and forth on this point here, so don't know who was offended or why, but people typically won't when they are skeptical of the claim to be offended and take it as an effort to shut down discussion. For example, once I mentioned that the argument that certain foods convey energy way beyond their calories would not make them "bad foods" but actually super foods theoretically valuable in the fight against hunger and was told that I didn't understand world hunger (when that obviously was not the point) and was being offensive and insensitive to the plight of those suffering in other countries. IMO, the person who said that to me was not actually offended--because that's ridiculous--but just trying to be insulting and shut me up by claiming was saying something I clearly was not. If I had thought I'd actually hurt the person or even that her claim was not self-serving and obviously intended to be insulting, I would normally have apologized. (This also often comes up when the accusation assumes bad motives when none existed, and in those cases what often would result in an apology "oh, I had no idea," instead tends to make people defensive.)
I'll note that I've often pointed out that the usage of "clean" in "clean eating" is rude and insulting, because I think it is for reasons I have explained at length, and absolutely no one invested in the term (for some unknown reason) has thought that was a legitimate reason to stop using it or to apologize, so clearly plenty of people don't much care about the reaction of others if they think it's unreasonable. (Although obviously I am correct here.) ;-)0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Most people apologize when they find out they've hurt someone they didn't intend to hurt. It's usually followed with an explanation or with "It was wrong of me. You didn't deserve that."GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Yes it does.
If someone tells you that you're being offensive, the proper response is to say "sorry" and not to defend yourself by attacking the person you're offending.
Learn to have a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners. These things will get you far in life.
Really.....?
Wow. Just wow.
Just because somebody has offended you does not mean said person has a duty to apologize to you. It also does not mean that person is trying to offend you, or that their words were even offensive. It just means they are communicating in a way that you don't like, or they are saying something you don't want to hear.
By the way, while you're pointing that finger at whomever offended you, and while you are pointing that finger at me telling me to have "a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners," there are three more fingers pointing back at you.
There is nothing wrong with discussions, heated discussions, arguments, and pointing out when someone is giving incorrect information or making blanket statements about the right and wrong way to do eat, exercise, etc.
Something I never understand in this kind of arguments… and this is a genuine question, by the way.
If you did not want to offend the person, why wouldn't you apologise if they said they were offended? Refusing, from my point of view, just makes you sound antagonistic. I don't see any added value from it. If anything, it is counterproductive to the debate, as it moves the discussion on a more personal level distracting from the arguments and facts at hand.
Is it because you are afraid it would imply the other person is right?
Most people are not going about their lives trying to hurt others and really ARE sorry when they do.
Oh yes, I understand that. I meant the argument "People are too sensitive. I don't owe you an apology if I offended you." or the likes. Since if you hit someone sensitivities it implies you hurt them?
As in, why not just say, "I am sorry if I offended you, let me explain my argument in a different way."
Well, that would depend upon the situation.
This is an online forum where people discuss weight loss issues, and sometime things get heated. People have different communication styles, and we can't see facial expressions, hear tone of voice, or see body language. In my opinion, this place is a take what you like and leave the rest kind of situation, and to see it as anything else is a set up to be hurt or offended.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Most people apologize when they find out they've hurt someone they didn't intend to hurt. It's usually followed with an explanation or with "It was wrong of me. You didn't deserve that."GingerbreadCandy wrote: »
Yes it does.
If someone tells you that you're being offensive, the proper response is to say "sorry" and not to defend yourself by attacking the person you're offending.
Learn to have a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners. These things will get you far in life.
Really.....?
Wow. Just wow.
Just because somebody has offended you does not mean said person has a duty to apologize to you. It also does not mean that person is trying to offend you, or that their words were even offensive. It just means they are communicating in a way that you don't like, or they are saying something you don't want to hear.
By the way, while you're pointing that finger at whomever offended you, and while you are pointing that finger at me telling me to have "a little bit of compassion, empathy and just plain manners," there are three more fingers pointing back at you.
There is nothing wrong with discussions, heated discussions, arguments, and pointing out when someone is giving incorrect information or making blanket statements about the right and wrong way to do eat, exercise, etc.
Something I never understand in this kind of arguments… and this is a genuine question, by the way.
If you did not want to offend the person, why wouldn't you apologise if they said they were offended? Refusing, from my point of view, just makes you sound antagonistic. I don't see any added value from it. If anything, it is counterproductive to the debate, as it moves the discussion on a more personal level distracting from the arguments and facts at hand.
Is it because you are afraid it would imply the other person is right?
Most people are not going about their lives trying to hurt others and really ARE sorry when they do.
Oh yes, I understand that. I meant the argument "People are too sensitive. I don't owe you an apology if I offended you." or the likes. Since if you hit someone sensitivities it implies you hurt them?
As in, why not just say, "I am sorry if I offended you, let me explain my argument in a different way."
Well, that would depend upon the situation.
This is an online forum where people discuss weight loss issues, and sometime things get heated. People have different communication styles, and we can't see facial expressions, hear tone of voice, or see body language. In my opinion, this place is a take what you like and leave the rest kind of situation, and to see it as anything else is a set up to be hurt or offended.
Thank you, thank you, I needed a good old fashioned laugh about now!
0 -
Alright, thanks for the honest answers, a lot of valid points there. I do understand better now.
Well, that would depend upon the situation.
This is an online forum where people discuss weight loss issues, and sometime things get heated. People have different communication styles, and we can't see facial expressions, hear tone of voice, or see body language. In my opinion, this place is a take what you like and leave the rest kind of situation, and to see it as anything else is a set up to be hurt or offended.
This is interesting, because I actually see it the other way around – because I know people cannot see my facial expression or my tone of voice, I have to be more careful with my wording, as it's prone to being misinterpreted.
Which also kind of leads me to writing walls of texts at time, so I guess there are disadvantages to that as well. 0 -
I heard Bill Ayers (the American terrorist) on NPR this morning saying that half of America is not eating enough. He claimed these underfed American's are living in my own neighborhood, no less. American's are starving while being too fat. Being poor and underfed causes fatness, being wealthy and overfed causes thinness. The logic makes my head spin.0
-
I heard Bill Ayers (the American terrorist) on NPR this morning saying that half of America is not eating enough. He claimed these underfed American's are living in my own neighborhood, no less. American's are starving while being too fat. Being poor and underfed causes fatness, being wealthy and overfed causes thinness. The logic makes my head spin.
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »Alright, thanks for the honest answers, a lot of valid points there. I do understand better now.
Well, that would depend upon the situation.
This is an online forum where people discuss weight loss issues, and sometime things get heated. People have different communication styles, and we can't see facial expressions, hear tone of voice, or see body language. In my opinion, this place is a take what you like and leave the rest kind of situation, and to see it as anything else is a set up to be hurt or offended.
This is interesting, because I actually see it the other way around – because I know people cannot see my facial expression or my tone of voice, I have to be more careful with my wording, as it's prone to being misinterpreted.
Which also kind of leads me to writing walls of texts at time, so I guess there are disadvantages to that as well.
No problem at all. 0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I heard Bill Ayers (the American terrorist) on NPR this morning saying that half of America is not eating enough. He claimed these underfed American's are living in my own neighborhood, no less. American's are starving while being too fat. Being poor and underfed causes fatness, being wealthy and overfed causes thinness. The logic makes my head spin.
Not sure what your post means, but I am sure the newly thin Al Sharpton will be along to explain about caloric justice.
0 -
I heard Bill Ayers (the American terrorist) on NPR this morning saying that half of America is not eating enough. He claimed these underfed American's are living in my own neighborhood, no less. American's are starving while being too fat. Being poor and underfed causes fatness, being wealthy and overfed causes thinness. The logic makes my head spin.
I'm right there with ya..gif)
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I heard Bill Ayers (the American terrorist) on NPR this morning saying that half of America is not eating enough. He claimed these underfed American's are living in my own neighborhood, no less. American's are starving while being too fat. Being poor and underfed causes fatness, being wealthy and overfed causes thinness. The logic makes my head spin.
Not sure what your post means, but I am sure the newly thin Al Sharpton will be along to explain about caloric justice.
I usually reserve that gif for arguments that are so out of left field I can't even start countering them.
Do I want to know about caloric justice?0 -
That is not left field, it is very far right.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't understand why the OP is getting so much hostility. She isn't advocating some kind of quack "magic foods" myth or arguing against CICO. She's saying that just parroting "Calories in, Calories out, end of story!!!" is completely unhelpful to people who are struggling with weight loss. Maintaining a CICO strategy over the period of time required to safely and healthily lose even ten pounds is CHALLENGING. Yes, success will biologically come down to CICO, but these long term disciplines are largely a mental game, not a "just don't do it" game.
I think OP's tips are good ones (largely common sense). However, I don't agree that there's some distinction between a mental game and a "just don't do it" game. I see people asking how to avoid going over their calories, and to be honest I find this kind of difficult to understand. You just don't. You plan what you are going to eat and eat that. Sure, it's easier if what you eat is more filling (that seems kind of obvious, doesn't it?) and takes into account when you tend to feel hungry, but ultimately it IS a don't do it game if you decide to count calories or follow some other strategy.
For example, if your goal is 1600 and you are routinely going over 1600, you need to stop that and eat to your limit. I'm not saying I never go over my limit, but it's always a choice to do so or not. Similarly, if you pick some other strategy, like IF or cutting carbs or doing paleo or whatever, there are other things you just don't do that happen to have the side effect for those for whom they are successful of cutting calories.
What am I missing here?
You aren't missing a LOT, just a crucial point...losing the lard HEALTHFULLY takes TIME. And, sustaining CICO for months or years at a time can lead to a tougher mental game than "just do it" satisfies. I lost 10% of my body weight (I'm a small framed woman, so the number of pounds there is very small compared to many others) over 2 months, and before I gave myself a break for Thanksgiving, I was literally DREAMING about food every night, chewy bread, mashed potatoes...anything but turkey breast and hummus. I can't imagine how challenging those cravings must be for people who have 10 times the weight loss goal as I have...especially because to get that big, they have probably become very accustomed to foods and/or portions I've never dreamed of. "Just do it" isn't enough for a person who has been denying themselves for MONTHS and hit a plateau. Sometimes, mental tricks like adding veggies or timed protein snacks or, yes, knitting--- those are the simple actions that help someone choose that fork in the road that carries on with CICO.
Because, if I can whine that "I miss food" after a month of trying to get below 135, I can't imagine the struggles of will faced by the many people here who are trying to lose fully half of their body weight. Snarking that they should "just do it" doesn't feel like enough support to me. Back in his 20s, my husband ran ultra-marathons. He says he spent the whole time after mile 20 or so playing mental games with himself, "what if" mental exercises to spur him forward for the miles to come.
If "just do it" is all you need, then good for you. I just don't see any reason to come and crap on this thread except for "NEENER NEENER, I'M SO MUCH MORE DISCIPLINED THAN YOU PLEBES!!!!" If people need mental strategies and tricks to get over humps along the way, why storm in and snark at them? If I say (and I am the one who did) "Try knitting, it helps keeps your hands busy not snacking!" is there really something to be gained from sneering "who wants to knit?" (n.b. about 4-5 million people, if Ravelry stats are to be believed) I mean, I get being a naysayer on a thread where someone is spouting hokum about silly miracle or demon foods, or acting like drinking MLM shakes is the path to enlightenment....but seriously, I can't think of one decent reason for people to be crapping on Helen's willingness to share what's worked for her.0 -
Can someone sparknotes this ?0
-
If "just do it" is all you need, then good for you. I just don't see any reason to come and crap on this thread except for "NEENER NEENER, I'M SO MUCH MORE DISCIPLINED THAN YOU PLEBES!!!!" If people need mental strategies and tricks to get over humps along the way, why storm in and snark at them?
This is a truly bizarre reaction to my post.
0 -
At the end of the day, it does come down to "Just Do It". That's the unfortunate reality.
Either put yourself in a position where there simply isn't much excess food around (very difficult in the developed world!) or find the inner strength to say no.
At the root of it all - there is no other answer. Yes, I know it sucks. But what can you do - it is what it is.
0 -
Some of the tips in the OP work for me, some don't apply. I appreciate the spirit of it though, her attempts to offer actual steps that might help people execute CICO.
Some of us are very well equipped and able to just get down to business, find what works for us, and move toward our goals. But plenty of people need more guidance, tips and examples. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what the OP did.
Different strokes, folks. We need MORE variety of roads that lead to Rome around here, not less. This board seem to become more and more myopic by the day.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions