We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Cutting carbs and refined sugar
Replies
-
All food usually leads to releasing serotonin. The reason why is that it drops the dopamine to stop reward seeking behavior because the reward is right there.
When you demonize the food, you've increased the dopamine response. You've now made it something you've mentally decided is unobtainable, something that is different. There are people that have very specific diseases like Prater-Willy. 99%+ of adults are going to be able to inure themselves to temptation. Believe it or not, the words "oh, not ice cream again", and "oh, not pizza again" have been uttered by English speakers who normally like those things.
If people on here are asking how to avoid something, it seems obvious that it does not work for them at some level. How is my suggesting they change their relationship any worse advice than someone telling them to throw all of it out of the house and hope they never encounter it while out and about? How does it stop being demonization just because it has worked for them?
And honestly, if you really believe there are so many special snowflakes, why do you tell people all the time that people don't need to eat sugar? Lustig himself talks about children that can't generate their own glucose and have to have special diets.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.0 -
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.0 -
I used to 'change my relationship' with foods, but since discovered that it is easier to just label failed food relationships' foods as 'toxic' and minimize my interaction with them.
The only time it it appropriate to bring up how nutritionally unnecessary it is to eat sugar/carbs is right after a person asks how to minimize/eliminate or get control over a carb/sugar food and half the responses are saying EATTHEFOOD.
I personally pay attention to those people struggling with carb issues due to a long personal struggle with same and in addition our family has metabolic issues related to carbohydrate and I've spent hundreds of hours (or thousands if you ask my SO) learning about them.
Nutrional knowledge is sketchy and we are all unique. People's health and weight are dependant on them figuring out what works best for them. Supporting people in that process is more important than inappropriately applying random personal judgements.
Until you validate the actual problem, blindly supporting their process is no support at all. Some people need to reduce their consumption of certain things for health reasons. Many more do not, but think they do. Until it is confirmed which is true, giving support is worthless. I would not advise a diabetic to consume sugar freely, just as much as I would not advise a non-diabetic to force a dramatic reduction to their sugar intake. Context is vastly important, and simpy giving a pat on the back and a smiley face response to everyone who is following a path, without knowing if that path is essential, can possibly stop that person from further understanding to how things truly work.0 -
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.0 -
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.0 -
No, you've stated as fact that all human beings can survive without carbs to make the point that it isn't an essential nutrient. You weren't saying about people on MFP, you were saying it as scientific fact. That's fine as covers 99.9%+ of the world's population, but, if you're going to start talking about some people needing certain dietary changes because they're special, without anyone bringing in a doctor's note saying they have said issues, I'll call you on your playing fast and lose with what is or is not the way human metabolism works.
People with impaired gluconeogenesis are very ill, under the care of a doctor (or several), not looking for weight loss advice on MFP and pretty rare. People with issues processing carbohydrates well are frequently not diagnosed, on their own for answers, on weight loss forums like MFP and plentiful - maybe 3 out of 10 if the stats I've read are believable. I think what I am saying is appropriate for the folks here.
And the entire point that I am trying to make is that limiting carbs - even to low levels - is NOT the nutritional equivelent to jumping out a window.
If you have something that seriously shows 3 out 10 people have issues processing carbohydrates, I'd seriously like to see it. I'd find it incredible that something that started as frugivores could turn into a species with 30% of the population having an inability to handle carbohydrates in a span of 2 million years or less.
If you are limiting carbs because the latest headlines says to, or some other pseudo or quack science as often shows up in these threads, then yes, it is similar to jumping out a window for disbelieving gravity. Restricting carbs other than as a way to reduce calories is never a necessity for weight loss.0 -
I've had a verified physical addiction. To me, carbohydrates provoke a similar response - especially simple ones - with some very damaging health consequences. Some people can use a substance without addiction and others can't. I'm glad that you can just not overindulge, but please do not presume that your situation applies to every other person.
I've known a bunch of addicts and never seen a licking off the counter behaviour, did you make that up? I'm guite sure I haven't ever read that behaviour as a requirement to prove or disprove addiction.
I used the licking image to equate it with snorting lines of cocaine - I didn't say snort because that's not how a person would ingest sugar. Regardless of that - and regardless of your response to eating carbohydrates - it's not an addiction. You might have missed out on a very good thread the other day discussing the fact that there have never been any scientific studies in humans proving out the theory that sugar, or any other food for that matter, is addictive in any way. Any sense of addiction or craving is, you might pardon the expression, all in your head. The fact that the typical sense of 'addiction' is always to a very narrow spectrum of food for each person is very telling. If it were an addiction to food, it would be widespread among a large population (or n group in a blind scientific study) with a verified food in those studies. That never proves to be the case. In people like you, the damaging health consequences (if you are talking about something specific like thyroid, PCOS, diabetes, or something similar) that has nothing to do with addiction, but a physical reaction to something in the food that reacts badly with a medical problem in the body.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »
If 3 of 10 who come here have unkown carb issues, and someone suggests limiting carbs to all the folks who ask, one is giving inaccurate advice to 70% of those who are asking.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
It works for millions, as does other tools like moderation.
Both are sustainable and both are challenging and unsustainable (different horses for different courses).
OP - try it, low carb diets can be extremely healthy. The only thing that will happen is it will work, or it won't work.
The main thing to realise is, its not a magic pill! Its a tool to help you eat in a calorie deficit, which is the only way you will lose weight.
Good luck.
Way to take what I said out of context - I said that demonizing food doesn't work, not eating low carb. There's nothing at all wrong with eating low carb, it's just another way to eat at a calorie deficit. What is wrong is pretending (or even actually believing) that any food is 'bad' or 'evil' or will harm a person. Food is an inert thing, and can't do harm. It just sits there. People do the harm when they choose to overeat said food, no matter which food it is. Unless there is a specific medical condition that causes a person not to be able to eat a certain type of food, all food is open game and harmless in moderate amounts.0 -
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.0 -
No, you've stated as fact that all human beings can survive without carbs to make the point that it isn't an essential nutrient. You weren't saying about people on MFP, you were saying it as scientific fact. That's fine as covers 99.9%+ of the world's population, but, if you're going to start talking about some people needing certain dietary changes because they're special, without anyone bringing in a doctor's note saying they have said issues, I'll call you on your playing fast and lose with what is or is not the way human metabolism works.
If you have something that seriously shows 3 out 10 people have issues processing carbohydrates, I'd seriously like to see it. I'd find it incredible that something that started as frugivores could turn into a species with 30% of the population having an inability to handle carbohydrates in a span of 2 million years or less.
If you are limiting carbs because the latest headlines says to, or some other pseudo or quack science as often shows up in these threads, then yes, it is similar to jumping out a window for disbelieving gravity. Restricting carbs other than as a way to reduce calories is never a necessity for weight loss.
I think our conversation is over. If something is true virtually all people, it is not true because very limited exceptions exist?
0 -
Even with a post count of 211, I'm shocked by this claim.
No one that I've seen is suggesting carb limiting to random mfp posters.
0 -
I'd like to see the evidence that limit carbs is needed by as much as 30% of the human population. Until then, I'm going to keep assuming most human beings don't need to limit carbs outside of medical conditions that have been verified by professionals.
I think our conversation is over. If something is true virtually all people, it is not true because very limited exceptions exist?0 -
And I'll tell you the same I told others. If someone came into here asking what is the best way to jump out a window, would it be better to ask them if jumping out a window is necessary, or start explaining your personal strategy for opening a window latch? A lot of people think they to give up carbs. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and so it might help the person to actually check they're not following the latest trend in dieting.
Nutritional knowledge is better than most would think - psychology of food choices still could use improvement, but I can guarantee you, if you give me a metabolic chamber, control over food, and a test subject the science is there to guarantee they'll lose weight. Give me a barbell, weights, and little willingness on the part of the subject and I can even give good odds on most of the weight lost being fat rather than lean body mass. By and large, our metabolisms don't actually vary that much. For one, any kind of marked improvement or failure in metabolism would have profound effects on reproductive success in humans until around 100 years or so. For another, human evolution is marked by genetic bottlenecks where the entire race almost bit the dust and left a much smaller foundation population not that long ago.
And again, if you're going to make the argument that people are unique, don't make statements like glucose is a nonessential nutrient - for some people, it actually can be.
But the bolded implies that eating low carb is dangerous, like jumping out of a window is - it's not. It can be helpful and healthy.
It's more like trying to convince someone that the colour yellow is a good wall colour when they are convinced they want to try beige. If it turns out beige is wrong, they can repaint the room; if LCHF is wrong for them, they can change their diet. Not a big deal... like jumping out the window could be.
I agree that a good 2/3 of the population would not have great health improvements when they go low carb like someone who has insulin resistance, but it won't hurt them either - like continuing to eat high carb could hurt the minority with insulin resistance.
At best, eating LCHF could improve their health, at worst it will be a benign effect.0 -
I agree that a good 2/3 of the population would not have great health improvements when they go low carb like someone who has insulin resistance, but it won't hurt them either - like continuing to eat high carb could hurt the minority with insulin resistance.
At best, eating LCHF could improve their health, at worst it will be a benign effect.
Actually, I've known people who felt totally AWFUL on low carb diets. It certainly did harm them. I'm not saying people shouldn't try it if they want to, I'm saying that you're wrong that low carb never hurt anyone.
I have insulin resistance, but I didn't do low carb. I still lost weight and still got healthy. So it's not necessary for people with insulin resistance. I tried it once. Felt like death warmed up. Never tried it again.
I say low carb is unnecessary except perhaps for diabetes sufferers, and is therefore personal preference.0 -
If you want to go with your color analogy, if someone told me the need to know how to make yellow work with their room decor, and it seems like there are more color options, do I have to assume the person has already bought yellow paint, or can I recommend they get a free color swatch and think about some other colors? Why waste anyone's time on figuring out if low carb or yellow paint will work if they don't need to make it work? The fact that they're here asking how to make it work sounds like they're already having issues. Maybe now is the time to repaint with beige, only we'll have to put down a primer that we wouldn't have to have dealt with before.
But the bolded implies that eating low carb is dangerous, like jumping out of a window is - it's not. It can be helpful and healthy.
It's more like trying to convince someone that the colour yellow is a good wall colour when they are convinced they want to try beige. If it turns out beige is wrong, they can repaint the room; if LCHF is wrong for them, they can change their diet. Not a big deal... like jumping out the window could be.
I agree that a good 2/3 of the population would not have great health improvements when they go low carb like someone who has insulin resistance, but it won't hurt them either - like continuing to eat high carb could hurt the minority with insulin resistance.
At best, eating LCHF could improve their health, at worst it will be a benign effect.
And I do maintain that if you are doing things for the wrong reasons, even if not currently hurting you physically, you're setting yourself up for false beliefs.0 -
Even with a post count of 211, I'm shocked by this claim.
Stick around. You'll see it. It happens all the time.
I think she may mean that people who eat LCHF don't pop into all posts with "Try LC. It's the BEST!" Generally, LCHF is suggested in posts where the OP says they have issues with sugar/soda/sweets, or they are trying to go LCHF and are looking for advice, or when someone is looking to improve a health condition like diabetes or PCOS. I don't often find LCHF people add their thoughts to a post of increasing protein, or when to eat, or how to set macros, or how to carb cycle. I think most low carb people suggest LCHF when they think someone could benefit from eating that way
... Sort of like how people who eat foods in moderation usually suggest moderating foods for people with issues with sugar/soda/sweets, or who are trying to go LCHF and are looking for advice, or when someone is looking to improve a health condition like diabetes or PCOS. I would guess moderation is brought up with an even greater frequency (since it is a more common WOE around here).0 -
I find these discussions so bizarre -- genetically we are quite diverse, and most of us fine tune our food plans so that it is easier for us to eat at a calorie deficit. For me that is lower carb/higher protein, fat -- but for some it is a different ratio of macros/ and for some it is higher carb. The sanity for me is that I can only figure out what works for me -- I don't need to impose that on other people with different genetics/psychological responses to food, etc. I know what it is like to be an addict -- that is why I don't drink alcohol at all. Approximately 10% of the population is alcoholic -- for many of those it is easier not to drink at all than to drink in moderation. That is true for me. Same is true for certain very sugary foods -- for me it just doesn't work to eat a little ice cream Easier not to eat it at all -- much easier to eat at a calorie deficit if I'm not trying to eat "a little bit" of ice cream. But I really don't care if you eat sugar, or drink, or whatever else it is that you want to. I don't think its about will power -- I have a lot of it, I lift weights (even though I am an older person, I do a lot of hard physical and work stuff, etc. So I really don't think it is about will power. And a side benefit is that my osteoarthritis goes into remission when I eat lower carb. This is my personal response for what it is worth.0
-
If you want to go with your color analogy, if someone told me the need to know how to make yellow work with their room decor, and it seems like there are more color options, do I have to assume the person has already bought yellow paint, or can I recommend they get a free color swatch and think about some other colors? Why waste anyone's time on figuring out if low carb or yellow paint will work if they don't need to make it work? The fact that they're here asking how to make it work sounds like they're already having issues. Maybe now is the time to repaint with beige, only we'll have to put down a primer that we wouldn't have to have dealt with before.
And I do maintain that if you are doing things for the wrong reasons, even if not currently hurting you physically, you're setting yourself up for false beliefs.
I'm not figuring it out, the OP needs to do that. I just let them know what worked for me and possibly suggest they look into it if they are interested.
Their body. Their house...paint.0 -
I find these discussions so bizarre -- genetically we are quite diverse, and most of us fine tune our food plans so that it is easier for us to eat at a calorie deficit. For me that is lower carb/higher protein, fat -- but for some it is a different ratio of macros/ and for some it is higher carb. The sanity for me is that I can only figure out what works for me -- I don't need to impose that on other people with different genetics/psychological responses to food, etc. I know what it is like to be an addict -- that is why I don't drink alcohol at all. Approximately 10% of the population is alcoholic -- for many of those it is easier not to drink at all than to drink in moderation. That is true for me. Same is true for certain very sugary foods -- for me it just doesn't work to eat a little ice cream Easier not to eat it at all -- much easier to eat at a calorie deficit if I'm not trying to eat "a little bit" of ice cream. But I really don't care if you eat sugar, or drink, or whatever else it is that you want to. I don't think its about will power -- I have a lot of it, I lift weights (even though I am an older person, I do a lot of hard physical and work stuff, etc. So I really don't think it is about will power. And a side benefit is that my osteoarthritis goes into remission when I eat lower carb. This is my personal response for what it is worth.
Well said!
0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »
Actually, I've known people who felt totally AWFUL on low carb diets. It certainly did harm them. I'm not saying people shouldn't try it if they want to, I'm saying that you're wrong that low carb never hurt anyone.
I have insulin resistance, but I didn't do low carb. I still lost weight and still got healthy. So it's not necessary for people with insulin resistance. I tried it once. Felt like death warmed up. Never tried it again.
I say low carb is unnecessary except perhaps for diabetes sufferers, and is therefore personal preference.
Most people do feel poorly in the first few weeks LCHF. That's the body adjusting - if that is what you are referring to. It's not harmful, just tiring. I'm sorry your experience was so negative; I'm guessing that you were not adapted to burning fats though, and did not up your sodium, magnesium and potassium
I agree that low carb is not needed for everyone. It DOES help more than just diabetes. I started it partially to help my arthritis, partially to improve my blood sugars, and a distant third reason was to lose weight. It helped me with all three. It can also help PCOS, slowing dementia, and heart disease.... this would still be a large minority and not the majority though.0 -
God forbid anyone ask for and receive support before you've confirmed their problem to be a valid one, in your opinion.mantium999 wrote: »
Until you validate the actual problem, blindly supporting their process is no support at all. Some people need to reduce their consumption of certain things for health reasons. Many more do not, but think they do. Until it is confirmed which is true, giving support is worthless. I would not advise a diabetic to consume sugar freely, just as much as I would not advise a non-diabetic to force a dramatic reduction to their sugar intake. Context is vastly important, and simpy giving a pat on the back and a smiley face response to everyone who is following a path, without knowing if that path is essential, can possibly stop that person from further understanding to how things truly work.0 -
Well, I wouldn't want to assume anyone needs any kind of special dieting without them having consulted a doctor first. Don't you feel it would be a good idea to see a doctor before believing you need to follow a special plan like low carb?God forbid anyone ask for and receive support before you've confirmed their problem to be a valid one, in your opinion.0 -
No, you've stated as fact that all human beings can survive without carbs to make the point that it isn't an essential nutrient. You weren't saying about people on MFP, you were saying it as scientific fact. That's fine as covers 99.9%+ of the world's population, but, if you're going to start talking about some people needing certain dietary changes because they're special, without anyone bringing in a doctor's note saying they have said issues, I'll call you on your playing fast and lose with what is or is not the way human metabolism works.
If you have something that seriously shows 3 out 10 people have issues processing carbohydrates, I'd seriously like to see it. I'd find it incredible that something that started as frugivores could turn into a species with 30% of the population having an inability to handle carbohydrates in a span of 2 million years or less.
If you are limiting carbs because the latest headlines says to, or some other pseudo or quack science as often shows up in these threads, then yes, it is similar to jumping out a window for disbelieving gravity. Restricting carbs other than as a way to reduce calories is never a necessity for weight loss.
Prediabetes among people aged 20 years or older, United States, 2012
• In 2009−2012, based on fasting glucose or A1C levels, 37% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had
prediabetes (51% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population
in 2012 yields an estimated 86 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
• On the basis of fasting glucose or A1C levels, and after adjusting for population age differences, the
percentage of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older with prediabetes in 2009−2012 was similar for non-
Hispanic whites (35%), non-Hispanic blacks (39%), and Hispanics (38%).
Total: 29.1 million people or 9.3% of the U.S. population have diabetes
Diagnosed: 21.0 million people
Undiagnosed: 8.1 million people (27.8% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed)
View the full report: CDC’s National Diabetes Statistics Report
So, about 46% of the US population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Yes, it is a national and international crisis. It is actually far higher & worse than I said earlier in this thread.
It might just explain why you folks who process carbs OK (so far) are sick of hearing about low carb diets or people worried about carbs and sugars.0 -
Well, I wouldn't want to assume anyone needs any kind of special dieting without them having consulted a doctor first. Don't you feel it would be a good idea to see a doctor before believing you need to follow a special plan like low carb?
Now you're just being rude and insulting with your mockery.
Maybe you aren't nicer than I am, as you claimed.0 -
Ok. That's a rather different claim than 30% of people have a problem with carbs.
Prediabetes among people aged 20 years or older, United States, 2012
• In 2009−2012, based on fasting glucose or A1C levels, 37% of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older had
prediabetes (51% of those aged 65 years or older). Applying this percentage to the entire U.S. population
in 2012 yields an estimated 86 million Americans aged 20 years or older with prediabetes.
• On the basis of fasting glucose or A1C levels, and after adjusting for population age differences, the
percentage of U.S. adults aged 20 years or older with prediabetes in 2009−2012 was similar for non-
Hispanic whites (35%), non-Hispanic blacks (39%), and Hispanics (38%).
Total: 29.1 million people or 9.3% of the U.S. population have diabetes
Diagnosed: 21.0 million people
Undiagnosed: 8.1 million people (27.8% of people with diabetes are undiagnosed)
View the full report: CDC’s National Diabetes Statistics Report
So, about 46% of the US population has diabetes or prediabetes.
Yes, it is a national and international crisis. It is actually far higher & worse than I said.
It might just explain why you folks who process carbs OK (so far) are sick of hearing about low carb diets or people worried about carbs and sugars.
1. You're talking US population (though hint, some developing countries do actually have worse rates of diabetes)
2. The fasting A1C and glucose is a biased population. People who don't have other indicators for diabetes don't normally end up taking an A1C or glucose test.
3. You're assuming diabetes or prediabetic means someone has problems with carbs.
4. Diabetic Associations usually don't actually recommend low carbs diets, they recommend consistent carbs, including keeping them in one's diet.
5. Early diabetes and insulin resistance are often treated simply by losing weight, regardless of the carbohydrate composition of the diet.0 -
Now you're just being rude and insulting with your mockery.
Maybe you aren't nicer than I am, as you claimed.
I just thought it was good advice. I'm sorry if I've made you feel mocked for some reason.
0 -
Now you're just being rude and insulting with your mockery.
Maybe you aren't nicer than I am, as you claimed.
What? It's rude and insulting to advise someone to consult a doctor before starting any type of new diet?0 -
I take a lot of grief for suggesting that people consult a doctor when beginning a weight loss journey. Mock all you want. It's good advice. It's the smart thing to do.0
-
They should be as concerned as you.This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions