To everyone struggling to lose weight
Options
Replies
-
Excellent.0
-
-
Sounds like more drivel to make obese people to sound like victims of the food industry by placing the blame on something other than the person.
I find taking personal responsibility for my choices that brought me to this point much more powerful than playing the victim and blaming others. At least now I know that I'm in full control to do something about it.
Probably one of more truthful and accurate posts in this thread and it went by without a comment.0 -
starwhisperer6 wrote: »I will admit that I am lazy, I will own that fact. And OMG I MUST OWN THAT!!
FYI, you'll have to provide your own magic carpet and costume.
And they also make motorized skatebaords.
We didn't quite make BTTF predictions--these things till require the ground to move. Not air born ... yet.
0 -
starwhisperer6 wrote: »I will admit that I am lazy, I will own that fact. And OMG I MUST OWN THAT!!
FYI, you'll have to provide your own magic carpet and costume. And they also make motorized skatebaords.
We didn't quite make BTTF predictions--these things till require the ground to move. Not air born ... yet.
Heh. I think your rant is having the opposite effect than you intended. I must say I'm a bit intrigued! It seems to be that balancing on a hover board would take quite a bit of core strength and continuous work, actually. Just my guess!
Edit: Eh. Read an article. I'm over it. "Skateboard with wheels sideways". Heheheh0 -
knelson095 wrote: »and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy?
OMG, yes! Those stupid, freakin hoverboards (sorry, don't mean to offend if anyone has one/likes them) should be evidence of that. People are too lazy to walk anywhere, now we need to step on our hoverboards. I know people who use these in their offices to go down the hall and my college students use them to go to class, when they're slower than walking (among the massive crowd of students). OH! And the worse offense--riding the hoverboard to the campus rec center to work out. I mean, c'mon!
It's not everyone, but our lifestyles are getting less and less conducive to movement unless you make the conscious choice to be active. Amazon delivers stuff right to your door within an hour or two now! No more going to the store if you're willing to pay for the "convenience."
#smh
I get irrationally angry at the hover board things, too. It's not like anyone's forcing me to use it, so it shouldn't matter to me, but just the fact that they exist makes me a bit disgusted.
If a mini-segue (which is what this "hoverboard" really is) is so bad, then what about cars? Mopeds? Electric scooters? Motorcycles? Hmm, demonization of powered transportation. Isn't claiming that any of these items being "less conducive to movement" the exact same thing as saying that's an excuse for laziness? Seriously, I don't understand the difference at all.
And for the record, I don't think blame is being shifted away from someone's lifestyle choices, I think it's more about pointing out that there is a serious lack of nutritional education. I think it seems like a lot of people believe hokey things because they are not educated to know otherwise. Who's to blame matters less than focusing time/energy on education.0 -
When he said want vitamin c, take a pill... i was like whaaattt.....0
-
This guy's name though. 'Robert Lustig' ... ahaha
'Lustig' means 'funny' in German.
Sorry for that. I just thought I'd mention it.0 -
and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy?
...Actually, yes. Yes they are. In comparison to generations before this, people now eat bigger portions and move less. Fifty years ago, someone may have walked around all day running errands, moved around all day working, cooking, cleaning, doing certain physical jobs that machines do for us now. After work they'd go home, have dinner, watch a little tv, maybe go take a walk, and go to bed at a reasonable hour. Now? A lot of people drive to work, sit at a desk and stare at a computer, go home and stare at a tv or computer, then go to bed late and stare at their smartphone or tv until they fall asleep. So yes, as a whole, society is getting fatter due to habits like these. It's a level of laziness that has become socially acceptable because society has shifted so much. Those of us that exercise, move more in general, eat less, or some combination of the three don't fall victim to the effects of that laziness. Weight loss can be difficult, but it's not as hard as these stupid documentaries want people to believe. Everyone has a miracle cure to sell when the truth is right in front of us. It's not a pill, not fat burning foods, not a special weight loss company, it's the person themselves making changes.
We also eat too fast & thus consume, more calories than necessary; for satiety. Families use to consume, most of their meals together & talk between bites.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Proponents of the low carb diet say they are less hungry and therefore eat less calories.
In general, the studies I've seen that try to quantify what influences satiety show carbs have very little, if any, direct effect. The most important factors:
Protein strongly increases satiety
Fiber strongly increases satiety
Calorie density strongly decreases satiety
Fat somewhat decreases satiety
Carbs, of course, have an effect in that they can quickly raise calorie density - but so can fats. It's usually the combination of sugars and fats that are the most calorie dense foods.
I find many high-carb foods like pastas to be extremely filling.
There's one study floating around somewhere that found the most satiating food to be the humble potato.
It's certainly true for me. I also find a big bowl of popcorn (air-popped and lightly misted with butter spray) to be very, very filling.
That's because they're both starches.0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
That would explain alot 0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
That would explain alot
0 -
The basic reason why there's obesity is because of people who succeed at over consumption of calories. Anyone can STOP that IF they really want to. Of course there are people with health issues, but I'm referring to general population. People KNOW when they are fat and overweight. They basically just choose not to do anything about it but compound the issue. And that's more a mental approach then whatever Lustig believes about the food industry and sugar.Its basically getting to the heart of why its so difficult for people to eat less and exercise more.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
Hopefully the dietitian meant that about 130g of glucose is required for brain function. That can be met by eating carbohydrates or protein.0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
Hopefully the dietitian meant that about 130g of glucose is required for brain function. That can be met by eating carbohydrates or protein.
True.
Serious question though that I thought of because of this now.
Since gluconeogenesis happens with some of the protein you eat to get the minimum absolutely required glucose, and you can't eat too much protein either on keto, wouldn't that inhibit protein synthesis for muscle building/repair a bit since part of the ingested protein gets used for glucose generation, reducing your net protein intake?0 -
MondayJune22nd2015 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Ofcoarse a calorie is a calorie but hes obviously talking about a calorie of food in terms of effect on the body.
What then is the true science? Which health docs aren't mockumentaries? and if its right then how come everyone keeps getting fatter and sicker? Is everyone just lazy? Does sugar not cause insulin to rise? And does insulin not cause fat storage? How can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of sugar in terms of effect on the body when one causes fat storage and the other does not? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of counting calories I just believe the path of least resistance for weight loss is limiting sugar intake.
The opinion that reducing sugar intake is not looked upon positively on the main boards. Unfortunately any science that supports that is often labelled pseudo science, or the studies are deemed poor. I agree with you but I doubt that you will find any support here.
The Low Carber Daily, eat clean or paleo groups are where like minded people tend to go to.
Eliminating sugar is not looked upon positively.
A Dietitian told me, that at least 130 grams of Carbohydrates; was required for brain function.
Hopefully the dietitian meant that about 130g of glucose is required for brain function. That can be met by eating carbohydrates or protein.
She didn't mean "simple sugars" but she also didn't mention, this correlation either; so thank you because she'll be coming by again, next month & I'll certainly ask. I had started a thread before I went to see her, about ideas for questions; that I should ask.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10294944/meeting-with-a-dietitian#latest0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Since gluconeogenesis happens with some of the protein you eat to get the minimum absolutely required glucose, and you can't eat too much protein either on keto, wouldn't that inhibit protein synthesis for muscle building/repair a bit since part of the ingested protein gets used for glucose generation, reducing your net protein intake?
That would make sense to me, and would also explain why you need to up your carbs when trying to add LBM: reserving the protein to build/repair muscle instead of having some diverted for energy.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions