i'm eating more but still losing weight
Options
Replies
-
-
-
0
-
Oh em gee...someone just googled and grabbed the first things they could find.
I give up - must be a troll.
0 -
Unfortunately, the long timers will reject all of those links because they're not from a peer reviewed study.-2
-
Ok, that's what you focused on? I can put more up, but I thought if you were that interested to prove me wrong you would just search your own sources since you know where all the legit answers are.-1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »Unfortunately, the long timers will reject all of those links because they're not from a peer reviewed study.
Nope - I actually look at links to see if they contain references to studies and what the actual website is - please do not make assumptions.
Honestly, I am getting rather fed up with your dismissals of the 'long timers'.0 -
deviboy1592 wrote: »
Ok, that's what you focused on? I can put more up, but I thought if you were that interested to prove me wrong you would just search your own sources since you know where all the legit answers are.
No its not what I focused on - I tried to find the sources of their assertions - there were none.
Please put up ones that actually give links to actual studies - not just an article that can say anything. Context is always important.0 -
Ok, sorry. But all I see on here is anything claimed as a fact must be backed up by a peer reviewed study. People mocked me in another thread for posting a link that I thought was peer reviewed (came from a peer reviewed source, just that the article itself wasn't.)ForecasterJason wrote: »Unfortunately, the long timers will reject all of those links because they're not from a peer reviewed study.
Nope - I actually look at links to see if they contain references to studies and what the actual website is - please do not make assumptions.
Honestly, I am getting rather fed up with your dismissals of the 'long timers'.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, sorry. But all I see on here is anything claimed as a fact must be backed up by a peer reviewed study. People mocked me in another thread for posting a link that I thought was peer reviewed (came from a peer reviewed source, just that the article itself wasn't.)ForecasterJason wrote: »Unfortunately, the long timers will reject all of those links because they're not from a peer reviewed study.
Nope - I actually look at links to see if they contain references to studies and what the actual website is - please do not make assumptions.
Honestly, I am getting rather fed up with your dismissals of the 'long timers'.
If people make assertions that are as fear mongering as have been made here, damn right I am going to want some good evidence to support it. You need to look at the body of evidence. I do not dismiss articles out of hand in general, but you need to consider the source.
For example, Mr No Label (but will label) here is posting a bunch of randomness. We apparently have to work out which assertion he is trying to support. But the biggest issue is the total lack of context that happens when you do not have the support to the 'headlines' in articles. For example "sugar food causes obesity' . If you look at the facts behind the statement, you find a correlation when looking at ad lib eating- which totally makes sense as sugar is calorie dense and is not particularly satiating. It does not actually cause obesity and it is not even relevant when discussing it with people who are tracking their foods (and who are active).
You can pretty much find any claim being amde on the internet, whether it is true or not. Heck, I can create a website and state that The Spice Girls could sing - does not make it true.
0 -
In this situation, I would consider the Fitday and Dailymail articles credible sources, and possibly the blog.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, sorry. But all I see on here is anything claimed as a fact must be backed up by a peer reviewed study. People mocked me in another thread for posting a link that I thought was peer reviewed (came from a peer reviewed source, just that the article itself wasn't.)ForecasterJason wrote: »Unfortunately, the long timers will reject all of those links because they're not from a peer reviewed study.
Nope - I actually look at links to see if they contain references to studies and what the actual website is - please do not make assumptions.
Honestly, I am getting rather fed up with your dismissals of the 'long timers'.
So you accept those links as credible?
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this situation, I would consider the Fitday and Dailymail articles credible sources, and possibly the blog.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, sorry. But all I see on here is anything claimed as a fact must be backed up by a peer reviewed study. People mocked me in another thread for posting a link that I thought was peer reviewed (came from a peer reviewed source, just that the article itself wasn't.)ForecasterJason wrote: »Unfortunately, the long timers will reject all of those links because they're not from a peer reviewed study.
Nope - I actually look at links to see if they contain references to studies and what the actual website is - please do not make assumptions.
Honestly, I am getting rather fed up with your dismissals of the 'long timers'.
So you accept those links as credible?
The Daily Mail is credible? Are you familiar with it?
Also, see my comments above re understanding the scope so it can be applied, or not as the case may be.
Extract from the article.
"Young children eating a diet packed with fats, sugar and processed foods consume too few vitamins and nutrients, which means their brains never grow to optimal levels."
‘This doesn’t mean you should never give your child a fizzy drink, chips or pizza, but these foods and drinks shouldn’t dominate the diet,’ she said."
No-one is saying to only eat (or get children to eat) a bunch of food that is low in nutrients. Context and dosage...missing
0 -
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this situation, I would consider the Fitday and Dailymail articles credible sources, and possibly the blog.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, sorry. But all I see on here is anything claimed as a fact must be backed up by a peer reviewed study. People mocked me in another thread for posting a link that I thought was peer reviewed (came from a peer reviewed source, just that the article itself wasn't.)ForecasterJason wrote: »Unfortunately, the long timers will reject all of those links because they're not from a peer reviewed study.
Nope - I actually look at links to see if they contain references to studies and what the actual website is - please do not make assumptions.
Honestly, I am getting rather fed up with your dismissals of the 'long timers'.
So you accept those links as credible?
The Daily Mail is credible? Are you familiar with it?
Also, see my comments above re understanding the scope so it can be applied, or not as the case may be.
Now miss credible, show me one study that says any type of soda, red meat, chips, pizza that states all the health benefits for people? Must be a reason why their pulling them out of schools? Or why we call cheat days "cheat days".0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions