Let's clear up a misconception

ndj1979 wrote: »

I heard they faked the peep moon landing....

maxit wrote: »

Hehe tying a pork chop around the straw man and seeing how the pack responds - must be a slow day

Liftng4Lis wrote: »

Totally agree. I often talk about cheesecake and chocolate, (one of my favorite subjects), but I'm hitting my macros first.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

MelRC117 wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

emily_stew wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

wizzybeth wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

I'll add one-- People who choose to cut down their alcohol, sugar, gluten, lactose, whatever are not necessarily 'demonizing' anything or suggesting you do the same.

That all depends on how it is worded in the discussion. Generally if someone says "I like to limit ___________ because that works for me" without implying that it is the correct way, there usually is no problem.

The issues arise when someone says that you/or the OP/ anyone else should do these things too or they will get fat...or stay fat....etc.

I guess this will be the disagreement everyone made their popcorn for. It usually starts because someone asks how to replace or cut back on something, and the first replies they get are along the lines of "no" or laughing or asking why on earth they'd want to. Look at how many *kitten* storm threads start because the OP dares to mention the word "sugar" in the title. (taking bets on my #1 fan quoting this now, just because he can't help himself)

What I have noticed is if people are up front and mention a medical condition in their title or the first sentence of their post, everyone backs off. The people you'll see posting 3 dozen times in the other threads won't even show up. That, to me, speaks more than the bickering that actually goes on in those threads.

That's because in the absence of medical conditions (actual medical conditions, not Dr. Google), cutting out sugar, wheat, gluten, etc., is ridiculous and pointless.

And there's the declarative statement that everyone should eat the same way. Notice which side made it. If someone is less hungry or not hungry at all when they eat less sugar or wheat or whatever, which then leads to them eating less, which then leads to maintaining a deficit with much less effort, why should they try to find a way to fit it into their day? To make you happy? Are you somehow harmed because someone else quits drinking Coke or stops eating bread?

Because most of the time people who do just cut it out for "personal" reasons are doing it because they heard some misinformation on Dr. Oz or read some click-bait article online that told them that it had some sort of negative effect. Then those people come on here and vomit out the misinformation that is their new religion.

It gets old. You can personally cut something out and not say anything about it - plenty of awesome, knowledgeable people on here who are gluten free, vegan, low/moderate carb for their own reasons who don't go around spreading lies about the items they choose not to eat.

They understand that most of the time people who go vegan because "it's sooooo much healthier than eating meat," or "OMG low carb is the ONLY thing that works (even though I'm eating 1,000 calories a day) - carbs are bad for your body!" are setting themselves up for failure and giving bad advice on the threads.

It goes back to the statement whay Wizzybeth had said that if they just do the statement that it works for them there is no issue. JPW and I both disagreed with that claim and Emily came along and proved the point we were making.

Right - if it works for them, and they're not on here fear mongering and spreading their broscience all over the place, then it is not an issue.

However, I completely agree with Emily that it is not necessary, and I don't really see why pointing out to someone that what they're doing isn't necessary is a bad thing. The poster may not realize that it's not necessary, they could've gotten some bad information from somewhere and are using it as gospel, or there could be lurkers in the thread who will think that it is necessary to cut out that food group for success.

The thing is that many people who completely cut a food group from their diet don't realize that it will likely not be sustainable unless they have a medical issue requiring it or if they have serious ethical reasons for cutting it out. People are being informative and helpful when they point that out.

bw_conway wrote: »

wizzybeth wrote: »

EvanKeel wrote: »

Between meeting macros and fiber within even slightly restricted calories, it would be exceedingly difficult (for me) to eat significant amounts of "junk." I dislike that word both for its vagueness and connotations, but it's applicable.

I am eliminating "junk food" from my vocabulary and changing it to "fun food."

Great idea - while we're at it, let's also rename other things: "high cholesterfun", "funabetes" and "hypertensfun"!

ninerbuff wrote: »

Lots of people who eat food in moderation, don't ONLY eat processed or junk food, candy and ice cream as all their meals. Many of us actually eat lots of whole foods in high amounts too.

Carry on.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition