Something I learned to avoid carbs
Options
Replies
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »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 -
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.
You understand what "Help" means don't you
0 -
The thing most people who feel attacked don't understand is that most of the people here have no problem with anyone regulating their calories with low carb, gluten free, going vegan, clean eating, quitting sugar, or even facial analysis diet (google that). The problem arises when said people advocate ideas that are fallacious at best and spread misinformation instead of recognising their diet for what it is: a strategy that helps them regulate calories within a chosen set of rules that they find effective for that purpose.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »The thing most people who feel attacked don't understand is that most of the people here have no problem with anyone regulating their calories with low carb, gluten free, going vegan, clean eating, quitting sugar, or even facial analysis diet (google that). The problem arises when said people advocate ideas that are fallacious at best and spread misinformation instead of recognising their diet for what it is: a strategy that helps them regulate calories.
Exactly. I'd add to that those who insist theirs is 'the one true way' and everyone else is destined to fail.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »The thing most people who feel attacked don't understand is that most of the people here have no problem with anyone regulating their calories with low carb, gluten free, going vegan, clean eating, quitting sugar, or even facial analysis diet (google that). The problem arises when said people advocate ideas that are fallacious at best and spread misinformation instead of recognising their diet for what it is: a strategy that helps them regulate calories within a chosen set of rules that they find effective for that purpose.
cosigned0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »The thing most people who feel attacked don't understand is that most of the people here have no problem with anyone regulating their calories with low carb, gluten free, going vegan, clean eating, quitting sugar, or even facial analysis diet (google that). The problem arises when said people advocate ideas that are fallacious at best and spread misinformation instead of recognising their diet for what it is: a strategy that helps them regulate calories within a chosen set of rules that they find effective for that purpose.
WHo is to say what is fallacious, or misinformation? I am pretty sure most of us have said things that we thought where true later to find out where false. This is the result of lack of education on the subject.
An old excerpt from a forum topic i had from april 18th 2013(3yrs ago)...
"4. Carbs and more carbs
The most critical macro nutrient is protein. You should consume about 1g of protein per pound of Lean body mass. I like the ratio 50% protein 25% fat 25% carbs. This is just a starting point, these ratios aren't necessary at all. I don't care what your macros are as long as you get about 1g of protein per pound of lean body mass. You will find optimal carb levels for yourself eventually, so whatever method you choose doesn't matter. The 10-15% deficit listed above should come from carbs if you're not losing weight. If you do low carb and not losing. Carbs are important for thyroid regulation(low carb diets slow down your thyroid function). So I wouldn't cut them out completely. If you're one of those ketosis people, I kind of am. You should do something similar to CKD(cylical ketosis diet) to prevent thyroid problems. This just involves low carb for 5 days, 2 days of high carbs. That's all."
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/557201/how-to-lose-weight-correctly/p1
A reply to a blog post I found about someone saying they can't eat carbs 17 months
"Pu_239 wrote 17 months ago:
You can eat all the carbs you want as long as you're in a calorie deficit. Fat loss is about calories, not carbs.."
One of my blog posts, one part discusses binging
" 2. Binging
Binging is a period of excessive or uncontrolled indulgence in food or drink. People are always complaining about binging.
Solution: Guess what? binging doesn’t make you fat. Going over your calories does. One of the biggest problems with binging is that 95% of the time it’s on food with low nutritional density. This means its food that doesn’t have many nutrients. The solution to this is pretty simple, stop eating crap. Go binge on some lettuce or water. Then you get the people who don’t cook their own food, they live with someone else such as a parent or something and they have no choice of what they eat.
You may not have a choice of what you eat; you do have a choice of “HOW MUCH” you eat. It’s about calories remember? If you have this problem log your calories, doesn’t matter what you eat just log it. See what you average for a week then you slowly cut down on your total calorie intake. Lets say by 100 calories a week. That’s not hard. "
Obviously my views have changed over time through experience and education. I already preached all the, "it's about CICO stuff" years ago... been there, done that.
And it's still about calories, whither or not you found low carb to be a better strategy for you. Finding a way that was easier to implement intuitively without counting does not automatically change the basics of weight loss. For some it could be low carb for others it could be 80/10/10 or any other point on the spectrum. Both macro extremes produce results for different people for different reasons, but the underlying cause of weight loss is still calories.0 -
In other news, white bread gives me heartburn. Explain.0
-
chrysalid wrote:CICO still applies, unless you have a medical condition called hypothalamic obesity,
which is a living nightmare and proves that CICO does not work for absolutely everyoneMKEgal wrote:Um, no, CICO applies even then. Science still works.
The problem there is that the brain & gut aren't on speaking terms, so the person always feels hungry*,
even after consuming more calories than needed. If they ate less than they needed, they'd still lose weight.
*At least, that's what Cincinnati Children's Hospital says:
http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/h/hypothalamic-obesity/
"When there is damage to the hypothalamus, the communication between the gut and the brain
goes haywire, causing a constant feeling of hunger.
Since the hypothalamus cannot “hear” the signal that comes from the fat that is supposed to tell
the hypothalamus to turn off hunger, the person continues to feel hungry. He or she will continue
to eat excessively, the extra calories eaten are stored as fat, and the person never feels full...
In addition to the feeling of non-stop hunger, the person may feel irritable because there is extra
insulin production."
That's an oversimplistic and not entirely correct explanation. Hyperphagia is only part of the problem and it is not always present, but the weight gain is unrelenting. Not even the 'experts' agree on the facts at the moment:
Two competing hypotheses have been advanced regarding the weight gain in hypothalamic obesity. The first proposes that VMH damage promotes hyperphagia through damage to a VMH “satiety center” with subsequent obesity and compensatory hyperinsulinemia (14). The second proposes that VMH damage disinhibits the efferent output of the vagus nerve, which acts on the pancreatic β-cell to promote excessive insulin secretion in response to a meal. Augmentation of insulin secretion promotes the partitioning of ingested energy substrate into adipose tissue, leading to obesity (15, 16). Thus, in the first hypothesis, excessive insulin secretion is a result of the obesity, whereas in the second, insulin hypersecretion is a cause. A corollary of the latter is that insulin suppression may obviate the energy storage and weight gain in this syndrome.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-030003
0 -
Kelly, something is wrong with your calculations. Given your stats above, even at a desk job with little or no exercise, your TDEE is a little over 1800. If you add some moderate exercise in, it's 2086, and your TDEE goes up from there.kellysdavies wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »
Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.
WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.
So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.
She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.
She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.
Houston, we have a problem.
Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.
Even now, if you are 115 pounds (just a guess), your TDEE with no exercise is 1775, moderate exercise 1968.
Where did you get your numbers from?
Tended to use this one http://thefastdiet.co.uk/how-many-calories-on-a-non-fast-day/
mamapeach910 wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »
Okay, then why are you hanging around?strategicchibi wrote: »I don't care who did what, this is a clusterf*ck of negativity.kellysdavies wrote: »I need my bed now. I'll just end on this. Say I'm wrong and this is all wrong and I am only now losing weight at a good but steady slow pace -and it's making me happy and I feel good again and super healthy - but really it just boils down to the fact I am eating less calories than I am exerting (not saying I agree with this theory but for the sake of ending as a group of human beings who ought to just at least try and be civil and help one another) then shouldn't this at least be considered as an alternative way from the traditional CICO method (eat anything and everything, weigh and log, just don't go over your weekly cals and you'll lose weight) for those people who, like me, reached a point they didn't like and want to try something else? If it boils down to the same theory you all live and die by and it's not damaging and the person enjoys it and lose weight then can't we just agree there might be different means to the end?
This is my end. Night night xx
Nope, because you are making false claims while prompting a diet to people you can't even explain.
Also, remember everyone. Don't eat carbs and fat together but eat all the cheese you want.
Yep. Well done. Almost there...
Because cheese is either all fat or all carbs right? 2 different kinds of cheese?
Cheese has hardly any carb content.
But it has fat content. You shouldn't, by the rules of your eating plan, be able to eat it with a carb.
That's right. I don't. But I can as much as I like in that particular meal.
0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I love these people who have no idea how much they are eating but insist they are eating at a surplus despite losing weight (or vice versa).
Yup.
Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.
Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.
Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.
Am I reading that correctly? You guesstimate you ate almost 9 ounces of duck and over 7 ounces of pork chop?
And it didn't make you sick?
no? I think it's fairly 'normal' amount?
0 -
Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat than with sugar-loaded and grain-based food (when I say "you" I don't mean everybody).
In this study they had to keep decreasing the calories of the low-fat group to match the 'spontaneous' calorie reduction of the low carb group. Even so, the low carb group lost more weight.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-0214800 -
kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I love these people who have no idea how much they are eating but insist they are eating at a surplus despite losing weight (or vice versa).
Yup.
Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.
Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.
Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.
Am I reading that correctly? You guesstimate you ate almost 9 ounces of duck and over 7 ounces of pork chop?
And it didn't make you sick?
no? I think it's fairly 'normal' amount?
255g of duck is not IMHO a normal amount ..
this is 100 calories worth of chicken which is around 70g, duck would be around 40g - I don't think a portion almost 4 times a big is a standard serving
0 -
No deficit. Most days over what I burn.[/quote]
None of what you've listed are 'processed carbs'.lemurcat wrote:greek yogurt ... is obviously processed carbs...
Baby carrots are also processed carbs...
tomatoes aren't yet in season - so more processed carbs.
Heck, I might even have steel cut oats for breakfast.
Yes, yogurt has been changed from the original milk, thanks to bacteria, but that doesn't mean it's processed.
How are carrots processed carbs?!?!?! The only thing done to 'baby' carrots is that they're tumbled.
How does putting something in a can make it 'processed'? They have more salt than is healthy for
many people, but they're still pretty close to natural.
And oats which have been cut up or pressed into flakes are not 'processed'.
.
Healthy carbs are _not_ more expensive than processed / simple carbs (and fat, etc.)!MrPlate wrote:Take a look at populations that must eat that way because of the high cost of
healthier carbs. Severe crisis levels.
I don't know where that lie began, but it can easily be disproved by going to the grocery store.
Write down the prices & weights of various whole foods in the produce section, then write down the
prices & weights of various processed foods (such as potato chips).
When I did this, I found that for almost the same price (within maybe 20c), one could purchase EITHER:
a - a family-size bag of potato chips (about 1 lb, probably a little less)
or
b - one pound EACH of carrots, onions, rice, and dry beans
.
There's no difference.pu wrote:"how do we know if it's psychological of physical?"
.
LOL!peloton wrote:Do you even Anatomy and Physiology, bro?
I had someone at work tell me last week that the reason police officers wear their badge on the
upper left chest is to stop a bullet from hitting their heart.
I told her that no, the heart is actually in the middle/lower part of the chest, under the lower part
of the breastbone, leaning a bit to the left.
She still doesn't believe me.
Never mind the assorted college-level A&P courses, nursing courses, etc.
And never mind that in a 'bulletproof vest' (which we work on pretty much every day), the trauma plate
does NOT protect the area where a badge would be, but DOES protect the area where the heart is.
.melissalatzel wrote:But every cell in the human body requires glucose to function
ORLY?M27 wrote:No, that is not true that every cells needs it to function
.
The CDC disagrees with you.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's like saying "not all inches are equal" or "not all ounces are equal".kelly wrote:not all calories are equal
No it's not. An inch is an inch. Of course. Calories are only a unit of measurement which is energy. Once they are in your body they do different things - we all know this. We all know carbs do a different job from protein for example. The calorie changes to energy. Fuel for the body. Can you accept that if you put superunleaded in your car it will impact the performance of the car differently to if you put in standard unleaded - even if the same amount ? Similar theory!
.
You can mention anything you want, but since it's not true, not real, everyone who understandskelly wrote:Is there a rule on here that you can only discuss CICO positively and never
mention any other possible way. You're the obsessed and fanatical ones
science _will_ point out that your opinion is wrong, esp. since we don't want others who might read
this mess to think for an instant that they could eat more than their body needs and lose weight.
It is my truth, it is real. Why wouldn't you want others to read it. Say I am wrong and say you are right and I am loosing weight now because basically I am eating less and burning more (don't believe this but we'll go with it !). Then isn't this at least another option for people who are stuck who don't want to count calories or weigh food anymore ?
.
Those are 2 completely different and unrelated statements.kelly wrote:The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat.
Not all calories are equal
The first is true, the second is not.
I disagree!
.
[quote=kellysdavies
You should contact your nearest research hospital & present yourself for analysis, because you have
(apparently) successfully violated the laws of physics. You should be written up in major medical
journals so everyone will know they no longer have to eat less than their body needs in order to be
a healthy weight.
Maybe I will one day. Who knows.
.
ORLY?kelly wrote:I haven't told anyone that CICO doesn't work
.
It's not mine, it comes from the professional group for dieticians.mamapeach wrote:While I disagree with MKEgal's assertion that you need at least 45% carbs...
People with degrees in nutrition.
People who have research backing their opinions.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/1/1/T1.expansion.html [/quote]
0 -
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.
Woo! Wow. Finally. Someone who 'gets' it.
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) ..
So you were successful but not for more than 6 months ... Same way I was successful on CICO but then not for more than 6 months once I had reached a certain point.
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
One potato in a carb meal made you put all your weight back on? Didn't do that for me. I had a potato with cottage cheese last week for lunch one day.
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
Really? A slice of toast in a carb meal?
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
I personally fund it easier for life! No counting, no weighing and eating out is far easier! I fail to see how you can't incorporate it easily?! And I needed far more willpower for CICO. But this is just me. As everyone says we all need different things that work for us.
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
Yeah I'm not sure how many peer review studies have been done yet as it's relatively new way of thinking about food compared to CICO which has been around since dinasours :-)
0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »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) ..
So you were successful but not for more than 6 months ... Same way I was successful on CICO but then not for more than 6 months once I had reached a certain point.
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
One potato in a carb meal made you put all your weight back on? Didn't do that for me. I had a potato with cottage cheese last week for lunch one day.
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
Really? A slice of toast in a carb meal?
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
I personally fund it easier for life! No counting, no weighing and eating out is far easier! I fail to see how you can't incorporate it easily?! And I needed far more willpower for CICO. But this is just me. As everyone says we all need different things that work for us.
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
Yeah I'm not sure how many peer review studies have been done yet as it's relatively new way of thinking about food compared to CICO which has been around since dinasours :-)
It's really not new - it's been around decades0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »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.
Woo! Wow. Finally. Someone who 'gets' it.
Hear, hear!
One study says this, another study says that. Scientists have pissing contests too y'know!0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »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.
Woo! Wow. Finally. Someone who 'gets' it.
Hear, hear!
One study says this, another study says that. Scientists have pissing contests too y'know!
we know
Bazinga0 -
Carbs are only bad if you regularly eat the rubbish ones like white bread, pasta, cake, cookies, pastry, etc etc. Anything in excess is bad for you anyways.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions