Attention all carb professionals!! lol
Replies
-
TheVirgoddess wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Hear hear.Phoenix_Down wrote: »I'm a carb professional but not the kind you're looking for. The lowest carbs I've ever gone is 100g lol.
Unless you have a medical reason OP, why are you cutting carbs?
Maybe b/c she doesn't want the medical reason in the first place
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527677
Seriously? All this study did was compare a low carb diet and a low fat diet. The low carb diet was more effective on people that were already at risk for T2.
So I guess I'm missing your point. Or you don't understand the study you posted.
Ok fine. great at critiquing studies, but doesn't post study herself. Please feel free to do so. We will all benefit.
Don't be condescending about someone not understanding a study that they posted. You really never know the level of expertise of the person you are trying to insult.
Where did I insult you?
I'm not the one claiming that carbs are bad, and that eating them will cause medical issues, so why do I need to post a study? You made a claim, the onus is on you to back it up.
And I'm terribly sorry for assuming that you understood the study that you posted to back up your claim.
Sorry, we should take a step back. I didn't even ask if you read the full text. Did you? You must have access to the full article given your readiness to be condescending about literature. So I assume that you did. And I forgot to clarify - how does the statement you made about the article even come close to nullifying its argument or its clinical relevance or its extrapolation to primary prevention for patients at risk for diabetes or patients who are pre-diabetic? And given the knowledge you seem to have about endocrinology, you must know the exact dividing fine line between non-diabetic and at-risk for diabetes to claim that this article is irrelevant to the general population. I made a claim. And backed it up with a journal article. In return, I got a standard forum reply. I wonder which piece of literature I will choose to make decisions for myself,my family or my patients? Journal article? Or vague debunking statement from person on internet?0 -
LOL!TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Hear hear.Phoenix_Down wrote: »I'm a carb professional but not the kind you're looking for. The lowest carbs I've ever gone is 100g lol.
Unless you have a medical reason OP, why are you cutting carbs?
Maybe b/c she doesn't want the medical reason in the first place
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527677
Seriously? All this study did was compare a low carb diet and a low fat diet. The low carb diet was more effective on people that were already at risk for T2.
So I guess I'm missing your point. Or you don't understand the study you posted.
Ok fine. great at critiquing studies, but doesn't post study herself. Please feel free to do so. We will all benefit.
Don't be condescending about someone not understanding a study that they posted. You really never know the level of expertise of the person you are trying to insult.
So if you post something that's incorrect/doesn't support your stance, we can't say because you're a secret genius?
Oh wow, we've already established that my posting is "incorrect" and "doesn't support my stance". When exactly did that happen? I hope that isn't a reflection on how the whole forum makes decisions based on evidence presented.
"Oh. I didn't read article, but she said something vaguely bad about it so it's clearly incorrect and doesn't support his argument, so I'm going to jump on the bandwagon hoping that someone won't notice the fact that I just bypassed the whole exercise of actually disproving the article." Diabolical.0 -
LOL!TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Hear hear.Phoenix_Down wrote: »I'm a carb professional but not the kind you're looking for. The lowest carbs I've ever gone is 100g lol.
Unless you have a medical reason OP, why are you cutting carbs?
Maybe b/c she doesn't want the medical reason in the first place
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527677
Seriously? All this study did was compare a low carb diet and a low fat diet. The low carb diet was more effective on people that were already at risk for T2.
So I guess I'm missing your point. Or you don't understand the study you posted.
Ok fine. great at critiquing studies, but doesn't post study herself. Please feel free to do so. We will all benefit.
Don't be condescending about someone not understanding a study that they posted. You really never know the level of expertise of the person you are trying to insult.
So if you post something that's incorrect/doesn't support your stance, we can't say because you're a secret genius?
Oh wow, we've already established that my posting is "incorrect" and "doesn't support my stance". When exactly did that happen? I hope that isn't a reflection on how the whole forum makes decisions based on evidence presented.
"Oh. I didn't read article, but she said something vaguely bad about it so it's clearly incorrect and doesn't support his argument, so I'm going to jump on the bandwagon hoping that someone won't notice the fact that I just bypassed the whole exercise of actually disproving the article." Diabolical.
Oh wow, so now we've establish that you assume not everyone has read it. Cool.
Next time I'll make sure to +1 her post to show I agree.
Glad I am not one of your "patients".0 -
LOL!TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Hear hear.Phoenix_Down wrote: »I'm a carb professional but not the kind you're looking for. The lowest carbs I've ever gone is 100g lol.
Unless you have a medical reason OP, why are you cutting carbs?
Maybe b/c she doesn't want the medical reason in the first place
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527677
Seriously? All this study did was compare a low carb diet and a low fat diet. The low carb diet was more effective on people that were already at risk for T2.
So I guess I'm missing your point. Or you don't understand the study you posted.
Ok fine. great at critiquing studies, but doesn't post study herself. Please feel free to do so. We will all benefit.
Don't be condescending about someone not understanding a study that they posted. You really never know the level of expertise of the person you are trying to insult.
So if you post something that's incorrect/doesn't support your stance, we can't say because you're a secret genius?
Oh wow, we've already established that my posting is "incorrect" and "doesn't support my stance". When exactly did that happen? I hope that isn't a reflection on how the whole forum makes decisions based on evidence presented.
"Oh. I didn't read article, but she said something vaguely bad about it so it's clearly incorrect and doesn't support his argument, so I'm going to jump on the bandwagon hoping that someone won't notice the fact that I just bypassed the whole exercise of actually disproving the article." Diabolical.
Oh wow, so now we've establish that you assume not everyone has read it. Cool.
Next time I'll make sure to +1 her post to show I agree.
Glad I am not one of your "patients".
Glad we agree on something.
no... not the dreaded +1!!!!!!! The debunker of all debunkers!!!!!!0 -
LOL!TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Hear hear.Phoenix_Down wrote: »I'm a carb professional but not the kind you're looking for. The lowest carbs I've ever gone is 100g lol.
Unless you have a medical reason OP, why are you cutting carbs?
Maybe b/c she doesn't want the medical reason in the first place
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527677
Seriously? All this study did was compare a low carb diet and a low fat diet. The low carb diet was more effective on people that were already at risk for T2.
So I guess I'm missing your point. Or you don't understand the study you posted.
Ok fine. great at critiquing studies, but doesn't post study herself. Please feel free to do so. We will all benefit.
Don't be condescending about someone not understanding a study that they posted. You really never know the level of expertise of the person you are trying to insult.
So if you post something that's incorrect/doesn't support your stance, we can't say because you're a secret genius?
Oh wow, we've already established that my posting is "incorrect" and "doesn't support my stance". When exactly did that happen? I hope that isn't a reflection on how the whole forum makes decisions based on evidence presented.
"Oh. I didn't read article, but she said something vaguely bad about it so it's clearly incorrect and doesn't support his argument, so I'm going to jump on the bandwagon hoping that someone won't notice the fact that I just bypassed the whole exercise of actually disproving the article." Diabolical.
What number of alt account is this? Looks like on the way to banned camp0 -
LOL!TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Hear hear.Phoenix_Down wrote: »I'm a carb professional but not the kind you're looking for. The lowest carbs I've ever gone is 100g lol.
Unless you have a medical reason OP, why are you cutting carbs?
Maybe b/c she doesn't want the medical reason in the first place
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527677
Seriously? All this study did was compare a low carb diet and a low fat diet. The low carb diet was more effective on people that were already at risk for T2.
So I guess I'm missing your point. Or you don't understand the study you posted.
Ok fine. great at critiquing studies, but doesn't post study herself. Please feel free to do so. We will all benefit.
Don't be condescending about someone not understanding a study that they posted. You really never know the level of expertise of the person you are trying to insult.
So if you post something that's incorrect/doesn't support your stance, we can't say because you're a secret genius?
Oh wow, we've already established that my posting is "incorrect" and "doesn't support my stance". When exactly did that happen? I hope that isn't a reflection on how the whole forum makes decisions based on evidence presented.
"Oh. I didn't read article, but she said something vaguely bad about it so it's clearly incorrect and doesn't support his argument, so I'm going to jump on the bandwagon hoping that someone won't notice the fact that I just bypassed the whole exercise of actually disproving the article." Diabolical.
What number of alt account is this? Looks like on the way to banned camp
0 -
wtf happened in here- in a matter of two pages.
Never change MFP... never change.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If you don't like the foods that would be necessary to eat to low carb then why are you trying to low carb? Carbs aren't the devil and such...you can lose weight and eat carbs.
Hear hear.Phoenix_Down wrote: »I'm a carb professional but not the kind you're looking for. The lowest carbs I've ever gone is 100g lol.
Unless you have a medical reason OP, why are you cutting carbs?
Maybe b/c she doesn't want the medical reason in the first place
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527677
LOL...so if I don't low carb I'm going to get diabetes...is that really what you're pedaling?
Also, that link talks about "lower carb"...not low carb...I wouldn't consider 43% or 41% of ones diet to be "low carb." I would agree that most people need to balance out their diets and most people who eat the SAD could do well to reduce carbs...but that doesn't mean they have to "low carb" which is generally 100 grams or less.
I get about 40% of my calories from carbohydrates.
Looks like I'll just narrowly escape the jaws of 'beetus.
I'm like 45% right now...guess I'm *kitten*...but those carbs sure to make a 50 mile ride better than it would be otherwise.0 -
Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.0 -
LOL!TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Hear hear.Phoenix_Down wrote: »I'm a carb professional but not the kind you're looking for. The lowest carbs I've ever gone is 100g lol.
Unless you have a medical reason OP, why are you cutting carbs?
Maybe b/c she doesn't want the medical reason in the first place
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527677
Seriously? All this study did was compare a low carb diet and a low fat diet. The low carb diet was more effective on people that were already at risk for T2.
So I guess I'm missing your point. Or you don't understand the study you posted.
Ok fine. great at critiquing studies, but doesn't post study herself. Please feel free to do so. We will all benefit.
Don't be condescending about someone not understanding a study that they posted. You really never know the level of expertise of the person you are trying to insult.
So if you post something that's incorrect/doesn't support your stance, we can't say because you're a secret genius?
Oh wow, we've already established that my posting is "incorrect" and "doesn't support my stance". When exactly did that happen? I hope that isn't a reflection on how the whole forum makes decisions based on evidence presented.
"Oh. I didn't read article, but she said something vaguely bad about it so it's clearly incorrect and doesn't support his argument, so I'm going to jump on the bandwagon hoping that someone won't notice the fact that I just bypassed the whole exercise of actually disproving the article." Diabolical.
What number of alt account is this? Looks like on the way to banned camp
*nod nod*
0 -
Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
Minnie, is that you?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
OP, as others have said, if you aren't doing this due to a medical issue, then don't do it. Carbs don't make you fat and if you are torturing yourself doing something you don't need to do, this is just setting yourself up for failure.0
-
PikaKnight wrote: »Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
Minnie, is that you?
Wow, I haven't heard that name in a long time.
:bigsmile:
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
Minnie, is that you?
No, not minnie. guess again0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Hear hear.Phoenix_Down wrote: »I'm a carb professional but not the kind you're looking for. The lowest carbs I've ever gone is 100g lol.
Unless you have a medical reason OP, why are you cutting carbs?
Maybe b/c she doesn't want the medical reason in the first place
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25527677
Seriously? All this study did was compare a low carb diet and a low fat diet. The low carb diet was more effective on people that were already at risk for T2.
So I guess I'm missing your point. Or you don't understand the study you posted.
Ok fine. great at critiquing studies, but doesn't post study herself. Please feel free to do so. We will all benefit.
Don't be condescending about someone not understanding a study that they posted. You really never know the level of expertise of the person you are trying to insult.
Where did I insult you?
I'm not the one claiming that carbs are bad, and that eating them will cause medical issues, so why do I need to post a study? You made a claim, the onus is on you to back it up.
And I'm terribly sorry for assuming that you understood the study that you posted to back up your claim.
Sorry, we should take a step back. I didn't even ask if you read the full text. Did you? You must have access to the full article given your readiness to be condescending about literature. So I assume that you did. And I forgot to clarify - how does the statement you made about the article even come close to nullifying its argument or its clinical relevance or its extrapolation to primary prevention for patients at risk for diabetes or patients who are pre-diabetic? And given the knowledge you seem to have about endocrinology, you must know the exact dividing fine line between non-diabetic and at-risk for diabetes to claim that this article is irrelevant to the general population. I made a claim. And backed it up with a journal article. In return, I got a standard forum reply. I wonder which piece of literature I will choose to make decisions for myself,my family or my patients? Journal article? Or vague debunking statement from person on internet?
All your study says is that "low" (43%) carb diets are more slightly more effective for fat loss than low (27%) fat diets.
Now I can see where you *could* make the leap that that will help prevent diabetes - but it's just that - a leap.
Any diet in which a person loses weight will be effective in lowering their risk of developing diabetes.
I have nothing against low carb diets - I think they help many to achieve a caloric deficit, and therefore weight loss. I was on a moderate carb diet for a while, because I was insulin resistant (I've since reversed it). I'm still on a moderate intake (40%), because that's where I'm comfortable.
So no, I have no agenda beyond pointing out weak arguments and logic fallacies.
0 -
Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
The problem is that you keep posting studies that seem to show that low carb is better than low fat, and suggesting that it means the best way to eat is low carb. But it doesn't. It just suggests that low carb is better than low fat. And no one here tells people to eat low fat.
No one here has a problem with people who eat low carb. But when someone is struggling to eat very low carb because they think that is the only way to successfully lose weight, they are asked why they are eating low carb so we know whether they have medical issues to consider or not. That's really it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
IDK if literally *no* carbs is feasible (answering the OP). I'm on a restricted diet for the beetus (lol) and the doctor told me I can have up to 45 carbs for the biggest meal of the day, and 30 carbs each for the others. That's pretty easy to do. The main thing I was told is to make sure and pair proteins with all carbs that I consume, and not to eat a heavy carb load all at once. Spread it out. I went to see an endocrinologist and she agreed with my regular doctor about those points. That said, the things with the fewest carbs, in addition to fish as you mentioned, are pretty much meat, meat and meat. All types, incl poultry. I would advise checking in with your doctor if you haven't already, before cutting carbs super low. Just to make sure that you're being safe. One of my friends got gout on the Atkins diet. :X And then right after that he, too, got the beetus. I'm just borderline; he's to the point his feet became numb. A good bit of that is heredity more so than the precise content of your diet.0
-
Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
who said anything about cookies? I haven't seen cookies mentioned at all in this thread until you brought it up. People simply stated that you don't have to go low carb to lose weight or be healthy. News flash...fruit = carbs...veg = carbs...whole grains = carbs. All of these things make up the bulk of my carbohydrate intake, not endless cookies.0 -
IDK if literally *no* carbs is feasible (answering the OP). I'm on a restricted diet for the beetus (lol) and the doctor told me I can have up to 45 carbs for the biggest meal of the day, and 30 carbs each for the others. That's pretty easy to do. The main thing I was told is to make sure and pair proteins with all carbs that I consume, and not to eat a heavy carb load all at once. Spread it out. I went to see an endocrinologist and she agreed with my regular doctor about those points. That said, the things with the fewest carbs, in addition to fish as you mentioned, are pretty much meat, meat and meat. All types, incl poultry. I would advise checking in with your doctor if you haven't already, before cutting carbs super low. Just to make sure that you're being safe. One of my friends got gout on the Atkins diet. :X And then right after that he, too, got the beetus. I'm just borderline; he's to the point his feet became numb. A good bit of that is heredity more so than the precise content of your diet.
There are people who do, or at least make that their goal. Also quite a few who aim for 5 or less (net), and get micros from organ meats instead of vegetables. Personally, I'm not giving up my avocados, but it's doable.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
who said anything about cookies? I haven't seen cookies mentioned at all in this thread until you brought it up. People simply stated that you don't have to go low carb to lose weight or be healthy. News flash...fruit = carbs...veg = carbs...whole grains = carbs. All of these things make up the bulk of my carbohydrate intake, not endless cookies.
0 -
What the wolfman said again. Also Kimny.
OP I cant see where you explained your reasoning behind low carbs. Try whichever approach you like, but plenty of people lose just fine eating a balanced diet as part of your lifestyle change.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
who said anything about cookies? I haven't seen cookies mentioned at all in this thread until you brought it up. People simply stated that you don't have to go low carb to lose weight or be healthy. News flash...fruit = carbs...veg = carbs...whole grains = carbs. All of these things make up the bulk of my carbohydrate intake, not endless cookies.
It always comes down to the cookies/pizza/fries/burgers, doesn't it?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
who said anything about cookies? I haven't seen cookies mentioned at all in this thread until you brought it up. People simply stated that you don't have to go low carb to lose weight or be healthy. News flash...fruit = carbs...veg = carbs...whole grains = carbs. All of these things make up the bulk of my carbohydrate intake, not endless cookies.
Am I reading this right? You think I'm singling out cookies? and not just using it as an example in my sentence? seriously?
You're right. you win. I can't compete with this.
In real life (whatever dietary path people decide to choose), talking to people about this with evidence is much much easier. I don't know if it's the veil of the internet or if I am lucky with the people I am surrounded by, but I'm going to stick to real life. Way more success in getting points across and positively helping people. Almost 100%. Much more satisfying.
That other guy on a different thread was going off about bad food, and yeah he was using language that was a bit too flowery, but not only were his points not even acknowledged or considered, but everyone just started ganging up on him. Because in a mob you will always win. Just like I have seen on this forum for months.
Many of your minds are just simple already made up and they are going to stay that way for a very long time. And the moderators seem to be working to facilitate this. Easy to see what is going on. And because of all the attitude.... it really doesn't feel like such a loss.
Go ahead MFP. Ban away. Again. No wait. Let me take care of this one.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
who said anything about cookies? I haven't seen cookies mentioned at all in this thread until you brought it up. People simply stated that you don't have to go low carb to lose weight or be healthy. News flash...fruit = carbs...veg = carbs...whole grains = carbs. All of these things make up the bulk of my carbohydrate intake, not endless cookies.
Am I reading this right? You think I'm singling out cookies? and not just using it as an example in my sentence? seriously?
You're right. you win. I can't compete with this.
In real life (whatever dietary path people decide to choose), talking to people about this with evidence is much much easier. I don't know if it's the veil of the internet or if I am lucky with the people I am surrounded by, but I'm going to stick to real life. Way more success in getting points across and positively helping people. Almost 100%. Much more satisfying.
That other guy on a different thread was going off about bad food, and yeah he was using language that was a bit too flowery, but not only were his points not even acknowledged or considered, but everyone just started ganging up on him. Because in a mob you will always win. Just like I have seen on this forum for months.
Many of your minds are just simple already made up and they are going to stay that way for a very long time. And the moderators seem to be working to facilitate this. Easy to see what is going on. And because of all the attitude.... it really doesn't feel like such a loss.
Go ahead MFP. Ban away. Again. No wait. Let me take care of this one.
Wow.
0 -
And.....*flounce*
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
who said anything about cookies? I haven't seen cookies mentioned at all in this thread until you brought it up. People simply stated that you don't have to go low carb to lose weight or be healthy. News flash...fruit = carbs...veg = carbs...whole grains = carbs. All of these things make up the bulk of my carbohydrate intake, not endless cookies.
Am I reading this right? You think I'm singling out cookies? and not just using it as an example in my sentence? seriously?
You're right. you win. I can't compete with this.
In real life (whatever dietary path people decide to choose), talking to people about this with evidence is much much easier. I don't know if it's the veil of the internet or if I am lucky with the people I am surrounded by, but I'm going to stick to real life. Way more success in getting points across and positively helping people. Almost 100%. Much more satisfying.
That other guy on a different thread was going off about bad food, and yeah he was using language that was a bit too flowery, but not only were his points not even acknowledged or considered, but everyone just started ganging up on him. Because in a mob you will always win. Just like I have seen on this forum for months.
Many of your minds are just simple already made up and they are going to stay that way for a very long time. And the moderators seem to be working to facilitate this. Easy to see what is going on. And because of all the attitude.... it really doesn't feel like such a loss.
Go ahead MFP. Ban away. Again. No wait. Let me take care of this one.
Also, I know your ilk...somehow moderation = all the cookies and pop tarts and ice cream and a diet completely void of any nutrition. Go ahead and take a look at my diary...you'e going to find a very rounded and balanced diet that is rich in whole food nutrition...and I eat carbs...OMG!0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Ok fair enough. I will get banned. That I know. MFP doesn't like the IIFYM or CICO everything in moderation boat to get rocked.
But, for the record, I still see the merit in those viewpoints because I have an open mind.
But wow, as soon as anything that remotely challenges the fact that you can't have piece of mind eating that cookie gets posted, all methods of rational unbiased discussion get thrown out the window... and the moderators will kick you out.
who said anything about cookies? I haven't seen cookies mentioned at all in this thread until you brought it up. People simply stated that you don't have to go low carb to lose weight or be healthy. News flash...fruit = carbs...veg = carbs...whole grains = carbs. All of these things make up the bulk of my carbohydrate intake, not endless cookies.
Am I reading this right? You think I'm singling out cookies? and not just using it as an example in my sentence? seriously?
You're right. you win. I can't compete with this.
In real life (whatever dietary path people decide to choose), talking to people about this with evidence is much much easier. I don't know if it's the veil of the internet or if I am lucky with the people I am surrounded by, but I'm going to stick to real life. Way more success in getting points across and positively helping people. Almost 100%. Much more satisfying.
That other guy on a different thread was going off about bad food, and yeah he was using language that was a bit too flowery, but not only were his points not even acknowledged or considered, but everyone just started ganging up on him. Because in a mob you will always win. Just like I have seen on this forum for months.
Many of your minds are just simple already made up and they are going to stay that way for a very long time. And the moderators seem to be working to facilitate this. Easy to see what is going on. And because of all the attitude.... it really doesn't feel like such a loss.
Go ahead MFP. Ban away. Again. No wait. Let me take care of this one.
That's too bad. I feel like I could have had some real fun with you.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K 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