carbs are my enemy
Options
Replies
-
Actually, it's not that I can't portion or manage not to overeat, I just feel so much better. My stomach feels better. I don't feel tired anymore. I'm sleeping less but more soundly and waking more refreshed. I don't think about food all the time.acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »EXACTLY! Which is why the "enemy" isn't carbs, it's portion control.
True. For some people though, controlling their portions of carbs (specifically the highly refined, calorie dense ones) is extremely difficult. So their perception is that carbs are their enemy. Look IMO, if you have identified what your achilles heel is more power to you. Who am I (or anyone for that matter) to tell you you're wrong.
Yes and I get that . . . I think it has a lot to do with the fact that (most) carbs are calorie dense foods which, when portioned correctly, most people do not feel it's enough food for them. However, if you have the same volume of another food, say like grilled chicken breast, you get the same quantity of food in your body for less calories which will lead to weight loss. It's definitely a mental thing.
If people need to cut carbs because they cannot portion them, then more power to you. I just don't feel as though they're the enemy, so much as they're just so darn good I want to eat all of them lol. They just need to consume proper portions of these carbs which, in reality, are really not all that big compared to what you can get for the same calories in other foods.
And, I've dropped 21# by eating at a deficit pretty effortlessly.
Surely, carbs are not evil. I just feel better.
0 -
Actually, it's not that I can't portion or manage not to overeat, I just feel so much better. My stomach feels better. I don't feel tired anymore. I'm sleeping less but more soundly and waking more refreshed. I don't think about food all the time.acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »EXACTLY! Which is why the "enemy" isn't carbs, it's portion control.
True. For some people though, controlling their portions of carbs (specifically the highly refined, calorie dense ones) is extremely difficult. So their perception is that carbs are their enemy. Look IMO, if you have identified what your achilles heel is more power to you. Who am I (or anyone for that matter) to tell you you're wrong.
Yes and I get that . . . I think it has a lot to do with the fact that (most) carbs are calorie dense foods which, when portioned correctly, most people do not feel it's enough food for them. However, if you have the same volume of another food, say like grilled chicken breast, you get the same quantity of food in your body for less calories which will lead to weight loss. It's definitely a mental thing.
If people need to cut carbs because they cannot portion them, then more power to you. I just don't feel as though they're the enemy, so much as they're just so darn good I want to eat all of them lol. They just need to consume proper portions of these carbs which, in reality, are really not all that big compared to what you can get for the same calories in other foods.
And, I've dropped 21# by eating at a deficit pretty effortlessly.
Surely, carbs are not evil. I just feel better.
Ok but were you seriously and honestly eating the appropriate portion of carbs before you gave them up and started to feel better? Even now, I sometimes way over eat on pasta. I can portion properly, it's just so darn good I indulge a little too much sometimes. Everyone can do it, it's really easy to over do and there's no blame or shame in that.
If so, then good for you that you've found the thing to help you out.
I would venture to guess though, that the majority of people do not have this issue. Their issue is they are simply eating too much of these foods since they are so calorie dense.
0 -
OK, I'll bite. Where did you post your list?blktngldhrt wrote: »
The college students are the only ones who give us lists of what is acceptable and what isn't.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
I don't know who Leo is, but if he wants to dress up, yay him.
Your two 5Ks are very impressive to me. I am still working on one. A friend who is doing it with me sent a picture of a t-shirt saying that said, "I run. I'm slower than a heard of turtles stampeding through peanut butter, but I run!" That would be the saying for me!
I don't expect anyone to give anything they read here any serious weight. I would hope they don't. Message boards aren't the place to find reliable answers.
They really don't need more than some ding-dong's blog. They can have their opinion and post it. They're not required to source their posts and if someone else doesn't find it "acceptable", that person is going to have to find a way to live with the fact that people posting to discussion boards will sometimes post things they don't agree with and/or things that are wrong.
It's a discussion board, not a research paper. If someone wants to post something that they find interesting, that's acceptable.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
[snip]
Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.
junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html
Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.
That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
Oh I know! Just telling him that that is not a peer-reviewed site
However, dozens of people have told him that since he started appearing in the forums and he still hasn't grasped the concept of what 'peer-reviewed' means!
Gale, the following are acceptable sources of information:
Message board posts do require a Works Cited page. You are not the first college student to try to tell everyone how to post, what is acceptable, etc.
What you deem acceptable and what people feel like doing may be two different things.
It's a discussion board topic involving the scientific field of nutrition, not a who-wore-it-best side-by-side celebrity outfit comparison. So yes, people can post their opinions and post sources they find interesting, but if they are going to make declarative statements about the science behind diet and nutrition, they need to have a more reliable source than "some guy's blog."
Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion should be given the same weight as the opinion of another poster who can actually discuss the science behind weight loss. Which is how we ended with one poster telling us that diet can change genetic diseases, then backtracking and admitting that he hasn't taken biology in 20 years and doesn't understand the science behind gene mutation (which he just argued diet could change) when he was confronted by people who actually work in scientific fields.
I'm not sure why people get so upset when the discussion is elevated to examining the existing research and looking at things from an objective viewpoint. Critical thinking is not the enemy.
If they cannot find a way to live with that, the Internet will drive them bonkers.
No, nobody has to give it any weight.
Anyone who has a serious interest will take a more scholarly pursuit than a message board...or they'll pay someone who has for their advice.
If people want to ask for sources, fine by me. I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of knowledge.
On the flip side, it's just not that big a deal if someone is wrong online.
That's my (unsourced, subjective) opinion.
I will not be receiving any more private messages from our new Board Policeperson (who has a "DEGREE", dontchaknow) as I blocked her after the first one, but I also will not be falling in line and sourcing my posts.
I may just have opinions and not cite them. I'm a wild and crazy girl.
I'm sorry that you have had an issue with someone sending you PMs, but the rest of us are not involved in those exchanges, so I'm not sure what purpose telling us about them serves other than trying to stir up drama. You said you blocked them, so if there are other issues between you and this individual, the next step is to contact the mods.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine, but don't expect people to give what you have to say any weight or to consider you a reliable, knowledgable poster on the subject. Therein lies the rub for most of the posters offering unsupported claims on the forum.
If you needed reliable info, I'd be the first person to tell you to find it elsewhere and not listen to me or anyone else! I'm not a dietitian and don't pretend to be one. Totally NOT and expert and don't even wish to be confused with one in any way.
No rub there! I invite everyone to either study it themselves or pay someone who has.
I think it depends on the discussion. There are really good discussions here on the forums which I would consider to have reliable information. Particularly the discussions where the posters involved have not only discussed the topic but have cited various sources that pertain to the topic. There's lots of good information to be had and new sources of information to discover in those threads. Steve Troutman has done some excellent threads, and there have been several weight training threads (I know, not everyone's thing) that have had some great information, even though they've gotten into specifics that are not relevant to where I am. I've also picked up a lot of tips and information from the running threads, even though I'm far from elite with my whopping two 5k races worth of experience.
I don't think the issues lies with people not being experts, but rather the general reaction that they tend to have when someone questions the veracity of their statements. Instead of simply sharing how they arrived at their conclusion and admitting that their conclusion isn't supported by the data, we end up with people being offended that anyone dare question them because they went to college/lost a certain amount of weight/know how to google/ran a race under a certain time/can do more pull-ups than any other woman in the gym and possibly the world (now with youtube video!). Then what could be a good discussion with information sharing and education turns into a dumpster fire. But at least we get gifs.
I very much don't want people basing real decisions on ANYTHING that I say and always try to remember to add that they should ask someone smarter than me, like a doctor who specializes in it or a dietitian. What if I said something and they used that and it ended up harming them? No, I don't want that on my conscience. No way, no how.
Plus, the things I learned (and I just said this to MrM), I didn't google them. I don't have links, even if I wanted to prove I was right, which I don't. I also don't want to be badgered by these college students who come in here demanding sources that they find acceptable. I went to college. I wrote my papers. I'm done with that and have no desire to go back.
I agree with you about the devolving discussions. Maybe my New Years Resolutions should include ignoring all of it. (Which would be easier if the Ignore feature came back!)
The goals for my first 5k were: finish the race, run the entire time, don't die. Not exactly trying to beat the Kenyans over here.
I think your point about not wanting to harm others is a good one, and I think that for many posters here, that is the reason why they request sources for claims and try to correct people when they are wrong. There are so many people who read this site but never post, and challenging misinformation may prevent someone from doing something harmful. Not everyone is doing it to mock others or try to come off as superior. If we never had another detox/cleanse thread on the forums, I think most of the regulars would throw a parade. *shameless excuse to build a float for Leo and dress him up Mardi Gras-style*
Some people ask for information because they want it. That's great, if they want to read more about it. A discussion of different opinions is always interesting to read, too.
Some people ask for information so they can mock, ridicule and ambush others. That's not as great. So many people quit posting because of that. They won't be around to read the good information because they're put off by all that and bail.
I guess it is what it is. Normally don't like that expression much, lol, but it fits.
If the college students can't handle the unsourced posts, though, they had better hang out near the fainting sofa, as not everyone will be following their rules.
College students aren't the only ones who like accurate, reliable information that can be backed up with peer-reviewed sources. So I'm not quite sure why you continue to say "college students" as if it's a bad thing that some individuals here are in school.
I'm not going to source anything, if that's okay with you...and even if it isn't.
That's false.
From doctors, yes. From message board posters, no.In my opinion, more people should be worried about the quality of information they're taking in. Especially in the case of diet and health..I see extreme necessity for correct advice to be given.
Doctors have to go to school for a long time and work very hard through it in order to be able to diagnose and treat. With all that training, they still cannot do it online.
No advice received here should be used in place of actual, medical advice. I think we all agree on that.
I think you are giving way to much credit to medical doctor's nutrition knowledge.
Ditto. That's why there are nutritionists.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »kmmargrave wrote: »Time for a bit of schooling.
Yes, eating a very low amount of carbs every day will make most people lose weight, and very quickly. I've been on Atkins since 2000--that's right, folks, that's 14 years--and I lost 30 lbs. initially. I stunk at maintenance, but could always, ALWAYS lose weight I'd regain. Cheating has two nasty consequences--headaches and digestional complaints, and massive sugar craving. Sticking to around 30-50 grams of net carb (carbs minus fiber) a day is the ticket, along with even low duration/low intensity exercise, and a ton of water a day.
Menopause and quitting smoking are game-changers, but a year and a half after quitting smoking, the weight is slowly coming off. Sugar (and carbs, which turn into sugar) is the enemy for me and other people as well.
YES, it's typical for many people to lose 4-5 lbs. in the first week.
NO, that's not just water.
I think the major issue here is the assumption that by cutting out carbs, you're cutting out the appropriate portion of those starchy carbs. I also would like to add some "schooling" here that fruits and veggies (which I'm sure you still eat) have a lot of carbs in them, they just do not have have starchy carbs - which is a major difference.
Carbs turn into sugar ONLY if you don't use the energy they create for your body. If you don't have the new energy in your body (put there by food) your body will use your fat stores to produce energy needed.
Bottom Line: carbs are not the enemy for anyone; portion control is your enemy. As was said before, many people (and myself included sometimes) don't properly portion things like pasta and potatoes and rice. The appropriate sized portions of these things are really very tiny and eating appropriate portions, I imagine you'd still lose a significant amount of weight. Further, as was also mentioned, you are getting the same quantity of food when you remove starchy carbs for less calories. For example, a plate filled with spaghetti and meat sauce will hold far more calories than that same plate filled grilled chicken breast and broccoli. You think you're getting the same thing when really you're filling yourself with foods that are the same volume for less calories. It's all an illusion and it still does not make carbs your enemy - you are your own worst enemy when it comes to things like this. Atkins just babysits you and tells you to eat this, not that. It's not rocket science, it's someone's way of getting rich based on almost everyone else's inability to portion what they eat.
Carbs are sugar, starch, and fiber. Fiber is the only one of those that isnt turned into sugar by the digestive tract. Your statement is not true.
My apologies - thanks for clarifying.
The main point was that they're energy and when you need more energy than you're putting into your body your body will use the reserves it has which leads to weight loss, or CICO.
All food is energy, not just carbs.
EXACTLY! Which is why the "enemy" isn't carbs, it's portion control.
True. For some people though, controlling their portions of carbs (specifically the highly refined, calorie dense ones) is extremely difficult. So their perception is that carbs are their enemy. Look IMO, if you have identified what your achilles heel is more power to you. Who am I (or anyone for that matter) to tell you you're wrong.
Yes and I get that . . . I think it has a lot to do with the fact that (most) carbs are calorie dense foods which, when portioned correctly, most people do not feel it's enough food for them. However, if you have the same volume of another food, say like grilled chicken breast, you get the same quantity of food in your body for less calories which will lead to weight loss. It's definitely a mental thing.
If people need to cut carbs because they cannot portion them, then more power to you. I just don't feel as though they're the enemy, so much as they're just so darn good I want to eat all of them lol. They just need to consume proper portions of these carbs which, in reality, are really not all that big compared to what you can get for the same calories in other foods.
The are the enemy for some people. I think saying they're the enemy sounds ridiculous..but that's the phrase being used here. People with insulin issues have trouble when carbs are introduced. It's not fat and usually not protein that is causing unhealthy fluctuations of insulin..its carbs. I'm one of those people who is better off without them. Normal people without medical conditions don't have this problem..but not everyone is without a medical condition.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »kmmargrave wrote: »Time for a bit of schooling.
Yes, eating a very low amount of carbs every day will make most people lose weight, and very quickly. I've been on Atkins since 2000--that's right, folks, that's 14 years--and I lost 30 lbs. initially. I stunk at maintenance, but could always, ALWAYS lose weight I'd regain. Cheating has two nasty consequences--headaches and digestional complaints, and massive sugar craving. Sticking to around 30-50 grams of net carb (carbs minus fiber) a day is the ticket, along with even low duration/low intensity exercise, and a ton of water a day.
Menopause and quitting smoking are game-changers, but a year and a half after quitting smoking, the weight is slowly coming off. Sugar (and carbs, which turn into sugar) is the enemy for me and other people as well.
YES, it's typical for many people to lose 4-5 lbs. in the first week.
NO, that's not just water.
I think the major issue here is the assumption that by cutting out carbs, you're cutting out the appropriate portion of those starchy carbs. I also would like to add some "schooling" here that fruits and veggies (which I'm sure you still eat) have a lot of carbs in them, they just do not have have starchy carbs - which is a major difference.
Carbs turn into sugar ONLY if you don't use the energy they create for your body. If you don't have the new energy in your body (put there by food) your body will use your fat stores to produce energy needed.
Bottom Line: carbs are not the enemy for anyone; portion control is your enemy. As was said before, many people (and myself included sometimes) don't properly portion things like pasta and potatoes and rice. The appropriate sized portions of these things are really very tiny and eating appropriate portions, I imagine you'd still lose a significant amount of weight. Further, as was also mentioned, you are getting the same quantity of food when you remove starchy carbs for less calories. For example, a plate filled with spaghetti and meat sauce will hold far more calories than that same plate filled grilled chicken breast and broccoli. You think you're getting the same thing when really you're filling yourself with foods that are the same volume for less calories. It's all an illusion and it still does not make carbs your enemy - you are your own worst enemy when it comes to things like this. Atkins just babysits you and tells you to eat this, not that. It's not rocket science, it's someone's way of getting rich based on almost everyone else's inability to portion what they eat.
Carbs are sugar, starch, and fiber. Fiber is the only one of those that isnt turned into sugar by the digestive tract. Your statement is not true.
My apologies - thanks for clarifying.
The main point was that they're energy and when you need more energy than you're putting into your body your body will use the reserves it has which leads to weight loss, or CICO.
All food is energy, not just carbs.
EXACTLY! Which is why the "enemy" isn't carbs, it's portion control.
True. For some people though, controlling their portions of carbs (specifically the highly refined, calorie dense ones) is extremely difficult. So their perception is that carbs are their enemy. Look IMO, if you have identified what your achilles heel is more power to you. Who am I (or anyone for that matter) to tell you you're wrong.
Yes and I get that . . . I think it has a lot to do with the fact that (most) carbs are calorie dense foods which, when portioned correctly, most people do not feel it's enough food for them. However, if you have the same volume of another food, say like grilled chicken breast, you get the same quantity of food in your body for less calories which will lead to weight loss. It's definitely a mental thing.
If people need to cut carbs because they cannot portion them, then more power to you. I just don't feel as though they're the enemy, so much as they're just so darn good I want to eat all of them lol. They just need to consume proper portions of these carbs which, in reality, are really not all that big compared to what you can get for the same calories in other foods.
The are the enemy for some people. I think saying they're the enemy sounds ridiculous..but that's the phrase being used here. People with insulin issues have trouble when carbs are introduced. It's not fat and usually not protein that is causing unhealthy fluctuations of insulin..its carbs. I'm one of those people who is better off without them. Normal people without medical conditions don't have this problem..but not everyone is without a medical condition.
Ok so I missed the "if you have a medical condition" caveat . . . for the majority of people who do not have any medical/metabolic conditions, this holds true.0 -
Question remains: Do you disagree?
Are you suggesting that people should seek medical advice on discussion boards instead of going to the doctor?
OK, I'll bite. Where did you post your list?blktngldhrt wrote: »
The college students are the only ones who give us lists of what is acceptable and what isn't.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
I don't know who Leo is, but if he wants to dress up, yay him.
Your two 5Ks are very impressive to me. I am still working on one. A friend who is doing it with me sent a picture of a t-shirt saying that said, "I run. I'm slower than a heard of turtles stampeding through peanut butter, but I run!" That would be the saying for me!
I don't expect anyone to give anything they read here any serious weight. I would hope they don't. Message boards aren't the place to find reliable answers.
They really don't need more than some ding-dong's blog. They can have their opinion and post it. They're not required to source their posts and if someone else doesn't find it "acceptable", that person is going to have to find a way to live with the fact that people posting to discussion boards will sometimes post things they don't agree with and/or things that are wrong.
It's a discussion board, not a research paper. If someone wants to post something that they find interesting, that's acceptable.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
[snip]
Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.
junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html
Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.
That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
Oh I know! Just telling him that that is not a peer-reviewed site However, dozens of people have told him that since he started appearing in the forums and he still hasn't grasped the concept of what 'peer-reviewed' means!
Gale, the following are acceptable sources of information:
Message board posts do require a Works Cited page. You are not the first college student to try to tell everyone how to post, what is acceptable, etc.
What you deem acceptable and what people feel like doing may be two different things.
It's a discussion board topic involving the scientific field of nutrition, not a who-wore-it-best side-by-side celebrity outfit comparison. So yes, people can post their opinions and post sources they find interesting, but if they are going to make declarative statements about the science behind diet and nutrition, they need to have a more reliable source than "some guy's blog."
Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion should be given the same weight as the opinion of another poster who can actually discuss the science behind weight loss. Which is how we ended with one poster telling us that diet can change genetic diseases, then backtracking and admitting that he hasn't taken biology in 20 years and doesn't understand the science behind gene mutation (which he just argued diet could change) when he was confronted by people who actually work in scientific fields.
I'm not sure why people get so upset when the discussion is elevated to examining the existing research and looking at things from an objective viewpoint. Critical thinking is not the enemy.
If they cannot find a way to live with that, the Internet will drive them bonkers.
No, nobody has to give it any weight.
Anyone who has a serious interest will take a more scholarly pursuit than a message board...or they'll pay someone who has for their advice.
If people want to ask for sources, fine by me. I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of knowledge.
On the flip side, it's just not that big a deal if someone is wrong online.
That's my (unsourced, subjective) opinion.
I will not be receiving any more private messages from our new Board Policeperson (who has a "DEGREE", dontchaknow) as I blocked her after the first one, but I also will not be falling in line and sourcing my posts.
I may just have opinions and not cite them. I'm a wild and crazy girl.
I'm sorry that you have had an issue with someone sending you PMs, but the rest of us are not involved in those exchanges, so I'm not sure what purpose telling us about them serves other than trying to stir up drama. You said you blocked them, so if there are other issues between you and this individual, the next step is to contact the mods.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine, but don't expect people to give what you have to say any weight or to consider you a reliable, knowledgable poster on the subject. Therein lies the rub for most of the posters offering unsupported claims on the forum.
If you needed reliable info, I'd be the first person to tell you to find it elsewhere and not listen to me or anyone else! I'm not a dietitian and don't pretend to be one. Totally NOT and expert and don't even wish to be confused with one in any way.
No rub there! I invite everyone to either study it themselves or pay someone who has.
I think it depends on the discussion. There are really good discussions here on the forums which I would consider to have reliable information. Particularly the discussions where the posters involved have not only discussed the topic but have cited various sources that pertain to the topic. There's lots of good information to be had and new sources of information to discover in those threads. Steve Troutman has done some excellent threads, and there have been several weight training threads (I know, not everyone's thing) that have had some great information, even though they've gotten into specifics that are not relevant to where I am. I've also picked up a lot of tips and information from the running threads, even though I'm far from elite with my whopping two 5k races worth of experience.
I don't think the issues lies with people not being experts, but rather the general reaction that they tend to have when someone questions the veracity of their statements. Instead of simply sharing how they arrived at their conclusion and admitting that their conclusion isn't supported by the data, we end up with people being offended that anyone dare question them because they went to college/lost a certain amount of weight/know how to google/ran a race under a certain time/can do more pull-ups than any other woman in the gym and possibly the world (now with youtube video!). Then what could be a good discussion with information sharing and education turns into a dumpster fire. But at least we get gifs.
I very much don't want people basing real decisions on ANYTHING that I say and always try to remember to add that they should ask someone smarter than me, like a doctor who specializes in it or a dietitian. What if I said something and they used that and it ended up harming them? No, I don't want that on my conscience. No way, no how.
Plus, the things I learned (and I just said this to MrM), I didn't google them. I don't have links, even if I wanted to prove I was right, which I don't. I also don't want to be badgered by these college students who come in here demanding sources that they find acceptable. I went to college. I wrote my papers. I'm done with that and have no desire to go back.
I agree with you about the devolving discussions. Maybe my New Years Resolutions should include ignoring all of it. (Which would be easier if the Ignore feature came back!)
The goals for my first 5k were: finish the race, run the entire time, don't die. Not exactly trying to beat the Kenyans over here.
I think your point about not wanting to harm others is a good one, and I think that for many posters here, that is the reason why they request sources for claims and try to correct people when they are wrong. There are so many people who read this site but never post, and challenging misinformation may prevent someone from doing something harmful. Not everyone is doing it to mock others or try to come off as superior. If we never had another detox/cleanse thread on the forums, I think most of the regulars would throw a parade. *shameless excuse to build a float for Leo and dress him up Mardi Gras-style*
Some people ask for information because they want it. That's great, if they want to read more about it. A discussion of different opinions is always interesting to read, too.
Some people ask for information so they can mock, ridicule and ambush others. That's not as great. So many people quit posting because of that. They won't be around to read the good information because they're put off by all that and bail.
I guess it is what it is. Normally don't like that expression much, lol, but it fits.
If the college students can't handle the unsourced posts, though, they had better hang out near the fainting sofa, as not everyone will be following their rules.
College students aren't the only ones who like accurate, reliable information that can be backed up with peer-reviewed sources. So I'm not quite sure why you continue to say "college students" as if it's a bad thing that some individuals here are in school.
I'm not going to source anything, if that's okay with you...and even if it isn't.
That's false.
From doctors, yes. From message board posters, no.In my opinion, more people should be worried about the quality of information they're taking in. Especially in the case of diet and health..I see extreme necessity for correct advice to be given.
Doctors have to go to school for a long time and work very hard through it in order to be able to diagnose and treat. With all that training, they still cannot do it online.
No advice received here should be used in place of actual, medical advice. I think we all agree on that.
I think you are giving way to much credit to medical doctor's nutrition knowledge.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we don't all agree. Are you disagreeing?
No, I am saying exactly what I said. You give to much credit to MDs. It's like telling someone to go see a gynecologist for their broken toe.
Whether or not I have given doctors too much credit is an entirely different point.
0 -
It's the point I made so it is exactly the point I am talking about.
Question remains: Do you disagree?
Are you suggesting that people should seek medical advice on discussion boards instead of going to the doctor?
OK, I'll bite. Where did you post your list?blktngldhrt wrote: »
The college students are the only ones who give us lists of what is acceptable and what isn't.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
I don't know who Leo is, but if he wants to dress up, yay him.
Your two 5Ks are very impressive to me. I am still working on one. A friend who is doing it with me sent a picture of a t-shirt saying that said, "I run. I'm slower than a heard of turtles stampeding through peanut butter, but I run!" That would be the saying for me!
I don't expect anyone to give anything they read here any serious weight. I would hope they don't. Message boards aren't the place to find reliable answers.
They really don't need more than some ding-dong's blog. They can have their opinion and post it. They're not required to source their posts and if someone else doesn't find it "acceptable", that person is going to have to find a way to live with the fact that people posting to discussion boards will sometimes post things they don't agree with and/or things that are wrong.
It's a discussion board, not a research paper. If someone wants to post something that they find interesting, that's acceptable.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
[snip]
Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.
junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html
Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.
That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
Oh I know! Just telling him that that is not a peer-reviewed site However, dozens of people have told him that since he started appearing in the forums and he still hasn't grasped the concept of what 'peer-reviewed' means!
Gale, the following are acceptable sources of information:
Message board posts do require a Works Cited page. You are not the first college student to try to tell everyone how to post, what is acceptable, etc.
What you deem acceptable and what people feel like doing may be two different things.
It's a discussion board topic involving the scientific field of nutrition, not a who-wore-it-best side-by-side celebrity outfit comparison. So yes, people can post their opinions and post sources they find interesting, but if they are going to make declarative statements about the science behind diet and nutrition, they need to have a more reliable source than "some guy's blog."
Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion should be given the same weight as the opinion of another poster who can actually discuss the science behind weight loss. Which is how we ended with one poster telling us that diet can change genetic diseases, then backtracking and admitting that he hasn't taken biology in 20 years and doesn't understand the science behind gene mutation (which he just argued diet could change) when he was confronted by people who actually work in scientific fields.
I'm not sure why people get so upset when the discussion is elevated to examining the existing research and looking at things from an objective viewpoint. Critical thinking is not the enemy.
If they cannot find a way to live with that, the Internet will drive them bonkers.
No, nobody has to give it any weight.
Anyone who has a serious interest will take a more scholarly pursuit than a message board...or they'll pay someone who has for their advice.
If people want to ask for sources, fine by me. I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of knowledge.
On the flip side, it's just not that big a deal if someone is wrong online.
That's my (unsourced, subjective) opinion.
I will not be receiving any more private messages from our new Board Policeperson (who has a "DEGREE", dontchaknow) as I blocked her after the first one, but I also will not be falling in line and sourcing my posts.
I may just have opinions and not cite them. I'm a wild and crazy girl.
I'm sorry that you have had an issue with someone sending you PMs, but the rest of us are not involved in those exchanges, so I'm not sure what purpose telling us about them serves other than trying to stir up drama. You said you blocked them, so if there are other issues between you and this individual, the next step is to contact the mods.
If you don't want to provide sources, that's fine, but don't expect people to give what you have to say any weight or to consider you a reliable, knowledgable poster on the subject. Therein lies the rub for most of the posters offering unsupported claims on the forum.
If you needed reliable info, I'd be the first person to tell you to find it elsewhere and not listen to me or anyone else! I'm not a dietitian and don't pretend to be one. Totally NOT and expert and don't even wish to be confused with one in any way.
No rub there! I invite everyone to either study it themselves or pay someone who has.
I think it depends on the discussion. There are really good discussions here on the forums which I would consider to have reliable information. Particularly the discussions where the posters involved have not only discussed the topic but have cited various sources that pertain to the topic. There's lots of good information to be had and new sources of information to discover in those threads. Steve Troutman has done some excellent threads, and there have been several weight training threads (I know, not everyone's thing) that have had some great information, even though they've gotten into specifics that are not relevant to where I am. I've also picked up a lot of tips and information from the running threads, even though I'm far from elite with my whopping two 5k races worth of experience.
I don't think the issues lies with people not being experts, but rather the general reaction that they tend to have when someone questions the veracity of their statements. Instead of simply sharing how they arrived at their conclusion and admitting that their conclusion isn't supported by the data, we end up with people being offended that anyone dare question them because they went to college/lost a certain amount of weight/know how to google/ran a race under a certain time/can do more pull-ups than any other woman in the gym and possibly the world (now with youtube video!). Then what could be a good discussion with information sharing and education turns into a dumpster fire. But at least we get gifs.
I very much don't want people basing real decisions on ANYTHING that I say and always try to remember to add that they should ask someone smarter than me, like a doctor who specializes in it or a dietitian. What if I said something and they used that and it ended up harming them? No, I don't want that on my conscience. No way, no how.
Plus, the things I learned (and I just said this to MrM), I didn't google them. I don't have links, even if I wanted to prove I was right, which I don't. I also don't want to be badgered by these college students who come in here demanding sources that they find acceptable. I went to college. I wrote my papers. I'm done with that and have no desire to go back.
I agree with you about the devolving discussions. Maybe my New Years Resolutions should include ignoring all of it. (Which would be easier if the Ignore feature came back!)
The goals for my first 5k were: finish the race, run the entire time, don't die. Not exactly trying to beat the Kenyans over here.
I think your point about not wanting to harm others is a good one, and I think that for many posters here, that is the reason why they request sources for claims and try to correct people when they are wrong. There are so many people who read this site but never post, and challenging misinformation may prevent someone from doing something harmful. Not everyone is doing it to mock others or try to come off as superior. If we never had another detox/cleanse thread on the forums, I think most of the regulars would throw a parade. *shameless excuse to build a float for Leo and dress him up Mardi Gras-style*
Some people ask for information because they want it. That's great, if they want to read more about it. A discussion of different opinions is always interesting to read, too.
Some people ask for information so they can mock, ridicule and ambush others. That's not as great. So many people quit posting because of that. They won't be around to read the good information because they're put off by all that and bail.
I guess it is what it is. Normally don't like that expression much, lol, but it fits.
If the college students can't handle the unsourced posts, though, they had better hang out near the fainting sofa, as not everyone will be following their rules.
College students aren't the only ones who like accurate, reliable information that can be backed up with peer-reviewed sources. So I'm not quite sure why you continue to say "college students" as if it's a bad thing that some individuals here are in school.
I'm not going to source anything, if that's okay with you...and even if it isn't.
That's false.
From doctors, yes. From message board posters, no.In my opinion, more people should be worried about the quality of information they're taking in. Especially in the case of diet and health..I see extreme necessity for correct advice to be given.
Doctors have to go to school for a long time and work very hard through it in order to be able to diagnose and treat. With all that training, they still cannot do it online.
No advice received here should be used in place of actual, medical advice. I think we all agree on that.
I think you are giving way to much credit to medical doctor's nutrition knowledge.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we don't all agree. Are you disagreeing?
No, I am saying exactly what I said. You give to much credit to MDs. It's like telling someone to go see a gynecologist for their broken toe.
Whether or not I have given doctors too much credit is an entirely different point.
Some questions on this board would be better answered by a doctor, but plenty of things on here can be answered with science, knowledgeable members...etc.
0 -
I tried a low carb day on Sunday. I had a whole 5 grams of carbs!! Well, come monday I couldn't stop eating. I went waaaay over mfp carb recommendation, which I have never ever done, not to mention went 200ish calories over my tdee, which I haven't done for a very long time. Low carbing is just not in my future.0
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »Just another "delusional" MD who counters the all calories are the same theory. Obviously, he must be a quack, a liar, or just trying to sell something. And he has the nerve to say that a calories from a Big Gulp and broccoli are not the same. Imagine that?
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/
Um yes, Dr. Hyman has been a well known quack for quite sometime.
0 -
As a unit of measure, there is no difference. A calorie is much like inch. Units of measure. An inch is an inch is an inch. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.prettykitty1515 wrote: »Just another "delusional" MD who counters the all calories are the same theory. Obviously, he must be a quack, a liar, or just trying to sell something. And he has the nerve to say that a calories from a Big Gulp and broccoli are not the same. Imagine that?
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/
However, just as some inches are much more beneficial than others, so are some calories.
The benefits derived from some inches or calories might be more desirable than others.
Is that what you're saying?
Some people believe that some calories are healthier than others, some sugars are healthier than others and some diets are healthier than others. Some don't! But some do. Is this what you're saying?
Or are you saying that calories from one thing are different units of measure than calories in another thing?
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »Just another "delusional" MD who counters the all calories are the same theory. Obviously, he must be a quack, a liar, or just trying to sell something. And he has the nerve to say that a calories from a Big Gulp and broccoli are not the same. Imagine that?
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/
It's good to know we can count on members like you to constantly return with claims they can't back up and posting links they've never read. Welcome back.
I see you still have no clue about nutrition.
You can't back up your claim either. Most people who try to count calories fail miserably. Why? Because just like most people can't survive a vegan diet, most people cannot count calories. It is tedious, time consuming, and a real drag. I'm happy that you and others here can do it. But most can't, and I would never recommend it. Why do you think Weight Watchers came up with the point system?
So if you can't count calories, do the next best thing. Keep the bags of cookies and pretzels and donuts and junk out of your house. If you want a sweet treat, go out and buy it. And don't waste your calories on orange juice and Coke.
I know there are people on this site who can have their 2.5 cookies, 11 nacho chips, 6.75 pretzels and 4.25 oz. of Coke tonight and stay within their limit, but most don't have that type of discipline.
Please provide a source for your claim. Thousands (if not millions) of individuals are on MFP. That means thousands count calories. Those who are serious about losing weight and want to be as accurate as possible, don't care that it is tedious and time-consuming (btw, it takes a mere 5 minutes to plug in your food for the day). And plenty of individuals would rather be "tedious" and see results than estimate and have absolutely no clue how many calories they are consuming (which leads to the 'IM NOT LOSING WEIGHT' threads).0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »Just another "delusional" MD who counters the all calories are the same theory. Obviously, he must be a quack, a liar, or just trying to sell something. And he has the nerve to say that a calories from a Big Gulp and broccoli are not the same. Imagine that?
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/
It's good to know we can count on members like you to constantly return with claims they can't back up and posting links they've never read. Welcome back.
I see you still have no clue about nutrition.
You can't back up your claim either. Most people who try to count calories fail miserably. Why? Because just like most people can't survive a vegan diet, most people cannot count calories. It is tedious, time consuming, and a real drag. I'm happy that you and others here can do it. But most can't, and I would never recommend it. Why do you think Weight Watchers came up with the point system?
So if you can't count calories, do the next best thing. Keep the bags of cookies and pretzels and donuts and junk out of your house. If you want a sweet treat, go out and buy it. And don't waste your calories on orange juice and Coke.
I know there are people on this site who can have their 2.5 cookies, 11 nacho chips, 6.75 pretzels and 4.25 oz. of Coke tonight and stay within their limit, but most don't have that type of discipline.
Kinda like reading your posts.-3 -
It takes me 2 minutes to log my daily food. I do it in the morning when I'm having a cuppa. I enjoy logging, I've only been doing it for 3mths, so it hasn't become tedious yet.0
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »Just another "delusional" MD who counters the all calories are the same theory. Obviously, he must be a quack, a liar, or just trying to sell something. And he has the nerve to say that a calories from a Big Gulp and broccoli are not the same. Imagine that?
http://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/calories-dont-matter/
It's good to know we can count on members like you to constantly return with claims they can't back up and posting links they've never read. Welcome back.
I see you still have no clue about nutrition.
You can't back up your claim either. Most people who try to count calories fail miserably.
I been logging for almost 3 years, January 28th, lost 121 pounds counting calories.
Sounds like you are just lazy and making excuses why can't do this.-2 -
Sounds this current discussion is at least 6 on 1…0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions