Something I learned to avoid carbs
Options
Replies
-
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »Coming in late, believer that everyone has to figure out what works for them as an individual... a bit tired of reading requests for peer reviewed articles/studies. There is a huge concern in every field that as the criteria for peer review is poorly defined, the results are inconsistent, biased, and inefficient. These journal articles support the need for standardization in peer review:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0066-782X2012000200017&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1676336/
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are no scientific laws, only theories that haven't been disproven yet.
It wasn't too long ago (relatively speaking) that Einstein developed his theory of special relativity, stating that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Most people accepted that as a law of physics. Just recently, scientists disproved that theory. Science is constantly evolving... what is believed to be true today may be found to be inaccurate in the not too distant future.
If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, don't automatically dismiss it for everyone. There are just too many variables.
How can CICO be disproved when anyone who eats at a calorie deficit loses weight and anyone who eats at a calorie surplus gains weight?0 -
0
-
I love pictures like that.
I can only imagine she means that Alcubierre Drive that I read about recently? Which doesn't go faster than light, it would shorten the distance between you and your goal by warping space-time, thus allowing you to reach the goal faster than light without actually going faster than light (and is probably going to be impossible to implement in reality due to various reasons).0 -
pu wrote:the "exercise more" part in the "eat less exercise more" can be removed.
That's not a viable means to help the obesity problem.
"Most weight loss occurs because of decreased caloric intake. However, evidence shows
the only way to maintain weight loss is to be engaged in regular physical activity."
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
That specific article states:
"To lose weight and keep it off: You will need a high amount of physical activity unless you also adjust your diet and reduce the amount of calories you're eating and drinking. Getting to and staying at a healthy weight requires both regular physical activity and a healthy eating plan."
It's telling you watch your diet. With out a dietary change there is a very little chance that weight loss will occur. As my original article on the subject stated. THe key factor in weight loss is diet. Not exercise.
You're restating the theory. They're telling you what "strong scientific evidence" as in experiments and practice have shown. And I will say that the maintenance portion is extremely important since by now surely we've seen that you can lose weight on just about any kooky diet/cleanse/detox known to man...
0 -
This study somewhat supports the OP's theory... for certain people - unless we aren't supposed to take TEE and REE into the weight loss equation (although I've seen enough people using them in these forums as part of their arguments against anything that isn't simply CICO.) I'm sure there are studies that would show different results for other people. Again, just too many variables.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432stevencloser wrote: »Uhhh, the speed of light hasn't been disproven.
0 -
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »This study somewhat supports the OP's theory... for certain people - unless we aren't supposed to take TEE and REE into the weight loss equation (although I've seen enough people using them in these forums as part of their arguments against anything that isn't simply CICO.) I'm sure there are studies that would show different results for other people. Again, just too many variables.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432stevencloser wrote: »Uhhh, the speed of light hasn't been disproven.
Yeah, Alcubierre Drive. You're not going faster than light, you're taking a shortcut that's shorter than a straight line. That didn't disprove Einstein.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »This study somewhat supports the OP's theory... for certain people - unless we aren't supposed to take TEE and REE into the weight loss equation (although I've seen enough people using them in these forums as part of their arguments against anything that isn't simply CICO.) I'm sure there are studies that would show different results for other people. Again, just too many variables.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432stevencloser wrote: »Uhhh, the speed of light hasn't been disproven.
Yeah, Alcubierre Drive. You're not going faster than light, you're taking a shortcut that's shorter than a straight line. That didn't disprove Einstein.
If speed = distance/time and the EM Drive (which is not exactly the same as the Alcubierre Drive) allows "shortcuts", how do you then measure the distance travelled? If distance is measured as a straight line, then yes, I believe it does disprove it. If distance is not linear, but rather measured as a "fold" in space/time, it's going to mean a total change in the way we process distances. Even the laws of physics are proving mutable.0 -
NO ONE asked the IMPORTANT question:
How much was @kellysdavies paid to advertise this idea/book/diet?0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »Why is it faddy? Have you actually read it? No. What silly rules? Why silly? You have no idea. You're making assumptions with no proper knowledge because you don't want to believe there *might* just be another way. Open your mind.
I don't get what you mean about the 800 calorie thing?
I was 10stone12. Goal weight 8stone10 (still upper end of the range for my height - could go down to 7stone10). I did TDEE for about a year. I got down to 9stone2. It worked! I was only on about 1300 cals a day but it worked. Over a year (maybe a bit more)
Then it stopped working. My BMR and TDEE are very low as it is (I'm 5ft1, woman, 36). I didn't lose for 6 months. Yes I weighed everything. Yes I was accurate with my recordings. I sat it out. Then I reduced my calories to 1000 a day and I was lost about half a pound in 4 weeks. If that. This wasn't maintenance - I still had more to lose. To lose any more I'd have to go to 800 calories. Did I say I did ? NO. I didn't want to. I don't want to. It's ludicrous. So I started researching why this was and what I could do. Done this diet for a month and now down to 8stone13.
So read posts properly before you make silly comments. Embarrassing yourself. Awkward.
@kellysdavies
I've read The Harcombe Diet and I've done it ...three times
Been there (twice) got the t-shirt (twice), didn't stick ...failed long term defined as more than 6 months success (3 times) ..
Lost a lot of weight the first time ...crashed and burned as soon as I ate a potato...water weight whooshed back and I thought what's the point, because once your resolve goes on restricting a yummy, pervasive macro the dam just bursts ..only more so
Tried again ...lost a lot of weight quickly again ..."oh look mum, 10lbs in 2 weeks"...ate a slice of toast and whoosh yet again
But good luck ...hope you stick for life ..because it is not an easy "diet plan" to fail ..there is no way to incorporate "normal" living and socialising on it ..it is a constant willpower thing
But some people do very well achieving their calorie defecit through reducing carbs..the medical mumbo-jumbo up front is interesting but I never found a single independent scientific study to back it up0 -
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »This study somewhat supports the OP's theory... for certain people - unless we aren't supposed to take TEE and REE into the weight loss equation (although I've seen enough people using them in these forums as part of their arguments against anything that isn't simply CICO.) I'm sure there are studies that would show different results for other people. Again, just too many variables.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432stevencloser wrote: »Uhhh, the speed of light hasn't been disproven.
Yeah, Alcubierre Drive. You're not going faster than light, you're taking a shortcut that's shorter than a straight line. That didn't disprove Einstein.
If speed = distance/time and the EM Drive (which is not exactly the same as the Alcubierre Drive) allows "shortcuts", how do you then measure the distance travelled? If distance is measured as a straight line, then yes, I believe it does disprove it. If distance is not linear, but rather measured as a "fold" in space/time, it's going to mean a total change in the way we process distances. Even the laws of physics are proving mutable.
The EM Drive? I just looked that up. The guy who thought of that claims it does not break any laws of physics and nowhere claims that is faster than light. I think you're mixing something up.0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »Why is it faddy? Have you actually read it? No. What silly rules? Why silly? You have no idea. You're making assumptions with no proper knowledge because you don't want to believe there *might* just be another way. Open your mind.
I don't get what you mean about the 800 calorie thing?
I was 10stone12. Goal weight 8stone10 (still upper end of the range for my height - could go down to 7stone10). I did TDEE for about a year. I got down to 9stone2. It worked! I was only on about 1300 cals a day but it worked. Over a year (maybe a bit more)
Then it stopped working. My BMR and TDEE are very low as it is (I'm 5ft1, woman, 36). I didn't lose for 6 months. Yes I weighed everything. Yes I was accurate with my recordings. I sat it out. Then I reduced my calories to 1000 a day and I was lost about half a pound in 4 weeks. If that. This wasn't maintenance - I still had more to lose. To lose any more I'd have to go to 800 calories. Did I say I did ? NO. I didn't want to. I don't want to. It's ludicrous. So I started researching why this was and what I could do. Done this diet for a month and now down to 8stone13.
So read posts properly before you make silly comments. Embarrassing yourself. Awkward.
@kellysdavies
I've read The Harcombe Diet and I've done it ...three times
Been there (twice) got the t-shirt (twice), didn't stick ...failed long term defined as more than 6 months success (3 times) ..
Lost a lot of weight the first time ...crashed and burned as soon as I ate a potato...water weight whooshed back and I thought what's the point, because once your resolve goes on restricting a yummy, pervasive macro the dam just bursts ..only more so
Tried again ...lost a lot of weight quickly again ..."oh look mum, 10lbs in 2 weeks"...ate a slice of toast and whoosh yet again
But good luck ...hope you stick for life ..because it is not an easy "diet plan" to fail ..there is no way to incorporate "normal" living and socialising on it ..it is a constant willpower thing
But some people do very well achieving their calorie defecit through reducing carbs..the medical mumbo-jumbo up front is interesting but I never found a single independent scientific study to back it up
I love you.0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »Why is it faddy? Have you actually read it? No. What silly rules? Why silly? You have no idea. You're making assumptions with no proper knowledge because you don't want to believe there *might* just be another way. Open your mind.
I don't get what you mean about the 800 calorie thing?
I was 10stone12. Goal weight 8stone10 (still upper end of the range for my height - could go down to 7stone10). I did TDEE for about a year. I got down to 9stone2. It worked! I was only on about 1300 cals a day but it worked. Over a year (maybe a bit more)
Then it stopped working. My BMR and TDEE are very low as it is (I'm 5ft1, woman, 36). I didn't lose for 6 months. Yes I weighed everything. Yes I was accurate with my recordings. I sat it out. Then I reduced my calories to 1000 a day and I was lost about half a pound in 4 weeks. If that. This wasn't maintenance - I still had more to lose. To lose any more I'd have to go to 800 calories. Did I say I did ? NO. I didn't want to. I don't want to. It's ludicrous. So I started researching why this was and what I could do. Done this diet for a month and now down to 8stone13.
So read posts properly before you make silly comments. Embarrassing yourself. Awkward.
@kellysdavies
I've read The Harcombe Diet and I've done it ...three times
Been there (twice) got the t-shirt (twice), didn't stick ...failed long term defined as more than 6 months success (3 times) ..
Lost a lot of weight the first time ...crashed and burned as soon as I ate a potato...water weight whooshed back and I thought what's the point, because once your resolve goes on restricting a yummy, pervasive macro the dam just bursts ..only more so
Tried again ...lost a lot of weight quickly again ..."oh look mum, 10lbs in 2 weeks"...ate a slice of toast and whoosh yet again
But good luck ...hope you stick for life ..because it is not an easy "diet plan" to fail ..there is no way to incorporate "normal" living and socialising on it ..it is a constant willpower thing
But some people do very well achieving their calorie defecit through reducing carbs..the medical mumbo-jumbo up front is interesting but I never found a single independent scientific study to back it up
I love you.
I SAW HER FIRST! I NO LIKE SHARING!
0 -
Geeze...know how to upset hangry people? Talk about how to avoid processed carbs!
Can we accept that sometimes just sometimes people will lose weight by doing different things? Some people it is better to avoid eating high carbs, some it is avoiding eating sugar...who cares! I thought this was a support forum, not a pissing contest to see who is right and who is wrong.0 -
lilaclovebird wrote: »
awww... 'fank 'oo
reads next posts ... laughsssss.... love this place, so funny
here, have a gif, only 6g carbs
0 -
Bunny!!!!!0
-
milocamolly wrote: »Geeze...know how to upset hangry people? Talk about how to avoid processed carbs!
Can we accept that sometimes just sometimes people will lose weight by doing different things? Some people it is better to avoid eating high carbs, some it is avoiding eating sugar...who cares! I thought this was a support forum, not a pissing contest to see who is right and who is wrong.
Sorry but this forum is not a support forum. There is an area for support if that's all you're looking for.
Nice try saying we're hungry. Assuming big.
Sorry I must have confused 'General Diet and weight loss HELP' with the 'Support' forum. But thanks for proving my point.
0 -
milocamolly wrote: »milocamolly wrote: »Geeze...know how to upset hangry people? Talk about how to avoid processed carbs!
Can we accept that sometimes just sometimes people will lose weight by doing different things? Some people it is better to avoid eating high carbs, some it is avoiding eating sugar...who cares! I thought this was a support forum, not a pissing contest to see who is right and who is wrong.
Sorry but this forum is not a support forum. There is an area for support if that's all you're looking for.
Nice try saying we're hungry. Assuming big.
Sorry I must have confused 'General Diet and weight loss HELP' with the 'Support' forum. But thanks for proving my point.
The most helpful thing anyone can do is to try and ensure the correct information gets out there.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions