Carbs - friend or foe?

Options
12467

Replies

  • mathjulz
    mathjulz Posts: 5,514 Member
    Options
    OK, you're going to get answers from both sides of the debate (because right now it is a big debate).

    Scientifically speaking, simple carbohydrates are rings of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Single rings are glucose and fructose, double rings are lactose and galactose (there's a couple more simple sugars, don't recall them). The rings bond together into chains to form complex carbs; starches are the simplest of these and they get more complex from there.
    Nutritionally speaking, carbs are ESSENTIAL. First, the brain cannot use any other form of energy. (In a pinch, our body can convert proteins into something like carbs to keep our brains functioning, but there are side effects, ketones being the least impactful.) Also, our bodies are very bad at burning fat in the absence of carbohydrates.

    Do all carbs break down into sugar? Yes, specifically into glucose. This is the only form our body can actually use. Are simple carbs bad? Not necessarily. They do digest faster, thus impacting blood sugar more, but they are also a source of near-instant energy. And in natural foods they are paired with other nutrients (think of all the good stuff in fruits, which are full of fructose, or dairy, which has lactose). Too much can definitely bad! Same thing for complex carbs. Our digestive system works much better when we have enough fiber, and studies have also linked fiber to heart and vascular health. Fiber is a complex carb, and is usually accompanied by other, more "digestible" complex carbs.

    The best route is to have a moderate amount of carbs (roughly 40% of your calories from carbs), get as many of them as complex carbs as possible, and get most of your carbs from natural sources (ie fruit, veggies, whole grains, beans, etc). Avoid lots of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup (while natural fructose is okay for you, the adding of fructose is artificial and has negative effects). A well balanced diet is going to meet all your nutritional needs (vitamins and such as well as carbs/proteins/fats) and promote overall health.
  • jmula
    jmula Posts: 38
    Options
    Ready for some knowledge?

    "Only in prolonged fasting does protein catabolism become an issue. This happens when stored liver glycogen becomes depleted. In order to maintain blood glucose, conversion of amino acids into glucose must occur (DNG: de novo glucogenesis). This happens gradually and if amino acids are not available from food, protein must be taken from bodily stores such as muscle. Cahill looked at the contribution of amino acids to DNG after a 100 gram glucose load. He found that amino acids from muscle contributed 50% to glucose maintenance after 16 hours and almost 100% after 28 hours (when stored liver glycogen was fully depleted). Obviously, for someone who eats a high protein meal before fasting, this is a moot point as you will have plenty of aminos available from food during the fast."

    Feed people a more proper protein intake, and the issue of free amino acids would cease to exist. INTERESTING. The referenced Cahill article is titled: "Amino acid metabolism during prolonged starvation"

    Interestingly there's another study done by Stote et al. titled "A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults." where participants ate 3 meals compared to 1 meal per day. The 1 meal per day group saw greater losses in fat with no significant reduction in lean body mass.

    Also interesting, right?

    this study was conducted using "normal weight middle aged adults"
    A body builder, or a power lifter uses more explosive energy, therefore they are using more protein. Which i feel would make the study results different. you have to compare apples to apples.
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    this study was conducted using "normal weight middle aged adults"
    A body builder, or a power lifter uses more explosive energy, therefore they are using more protein. Which i feel would make the study results different. you have to compare apples to apples.
    Actually wrong. You know what the most muscle-sparing thing you can possibly do is? Lift weights. Couple that with a high protein intake of 1 - 1.5g per pound lean body mass in a 24 hour period and you will never see your muscles hit a chronic catabolic state.

    If anything, bodybuilders have the right to be MORE lenient given their lifestyle, not more STRICT. You have it backwards. Lifting = very muscle sparing. Super high protein = very muscle sparing. Two of these working together in unison remove the need to do things like drink a protein shake before bed to prevent catabolism.
  • jmula
    jmula Posts: 38
    Options
    this study was conducted using "normal weight middle aged adults"
    A body builder, or a power lifter uses more explosive energy, therefore they are using more protein. Which i feel would make the study results different. you have to compare apples to apples.
    Actually wrong. You know what the most muscle-sparing thing you can possibly do is? Lift weights. Couple that with a high protein intake of 1 - 1.5g per pound lean body mass in a 24 hour period and you will never see your muscles hit a chronic catabolic state.

    If anything, bodybuilders have the right to be MORE lenient given their lifestyle, not more STRICT. You have it backwards. Lifting = very muscle sparing. Super high protein = very muscle sparing. Two of these working together in unison remove the need to do things like drink a protein shake before bed to prevent catabolism.

    Every article I see about gaining muscle suggests a protein meal before bed.
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/meal-frequency-and-mass-gains.html

    I honestly can't see all these people, including articles written by scientists, as well as professional body builders who have to know the human body like no other athlete being wrong. Sorry, but I just don't agree with you.
    You are actually the first person i have ever heard say it is not necessary. and for your lifestyle it may not be.

    Obviously we can both search the internet and find what we are looking for.
    bottom line is, I can honestly say that I am in tune enough with my body, that I can notice that when I dont eat a protein meal before bed, I feel the effects the next morning. with stomach rumbling, and an extreme hunger.

    Without one of us claiming the other to be "wrong" why don't we agree to dissagree. because i think at this point we hijacked the thread and thats not cool.
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options
    this study was conducted using "normal weight middle aged adults"
    A body builder, or a power lifter uses more explosive energy, therefore they are using more protein. Which i feel would make the study results different. you have to compare apples to apples.
    Actually wrong. You know what the most muscle-sparing thing you can possibly do is? Lift weights. Couple that with a high protein intake of 1 - 1.5g per pound lean body mass in a 24 hour period and you will never see your muscles hit a chronic catabolic state.

    If anything, bodybuilders have the right to be MORE lenient given their lifestyle, not more STRICT. You have it backwards. Lifting = very muscle sparing. Super high protein = very muscle sparing. Two of these working together in unison remove the need to do things like drink a protein shake before bed to prevent catabolism.

    Every article I see about gaining muscle suggests a protein meal before bed.
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/meal-frequency-and-mass-gains.html

    I honestly can't see all these people, including articles written by scientists, as well as professional body builders who have to know the human body like no other athlete being wrong. Sorry, but I just don't agree with you.
    You are actually the first person i have ever heard say it is not necessary. and for your lifestyle it may not be.

    Obviously we can both search the internet and find what we are looking for.
    bottom line is, I can honestly say that I am in tune enough with my body, that I can notice that when I dont eat a protein meal before bed, I feel the effects the next morning. with stomach rumbling, and an extreme hunger.

    Without one of us claiming the other to be "wrong" why don't we agree to dissagree. because i think at this point we hijacked the thread and thats not cool.

    Wait a minute, you're saying that a protein drink before bed is required for bodybuilding? This is just not true whatsoever. You do realize that supplement companies push this "science" for a reason right? If I sold wallets, I would suggest that every person under the sun should buy them because it would make me rich.

    You should read more things by Alan Aragorn. He's a professional in the nutrition field and he's been one of the leading people behind debunking massive amounts of myths (aka: BROSCIENCE) in the fitness and nutrition field. Here is an article from 2010 in which he talks about protein absorption rates:

    http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/

    Notice what's at the bottom that is missing from just about every link that people post here:

    SOURCES

    No one cares what someone's opinion is. It's about sources. Where is the data? Please stick to good source material, not some dude trying to sell a book.
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    Every article I see about gaining muscle suggests a protein meal before bed.
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/meal-frequency-and-mass-gains.html
    Lyle McDonald is an amazing source. For that reason, I highly suggest you read the article again as he does not state you need to drink a protein shake before sleep for optimal results. He mentions that some lines of reasoning lead to that conclusion, but he makes it clear that isn't a consensus.
    I honestly can't see all these people, including articles written by scientists, as well as professional body builders who have to know the human body like no other athlete being wrong. Sorry, but I just don't agree with you.
    You are actually the first person i have ever heard say it is not necessary. and for your lifestyle it may not be.
    I haven't seen you present any empirical articles. The only credible site you brought was Lyle McDonald's, as his opinion is rooted in scientific literature and cites it directly.

    Bodybuilders usually eat frequently because they have to eat 4,000 - 8,000 calories per day (depending on their size and activity level). Try eating that in 1-2 meals.
    Obviously we can both search the internet and find what we are looking for.
    bottom line is, I can honestly say that I am in tune enough with my body, that I can notice that when I dont eat a protein meal before bed, I feel the effects the next morning. with stomach rumbling, and an extreme hunger.
    Yeah, but find me a SCIENTIFIC article saying you will reach a catabolic state in 6 hours without protein.
    Without one of us claiming the other to be "wrong" why don't we agree to dissagree. because i think at this point we hijacked the thread and thats not cool.
    Fair enough.
  • grimnir
    grimnir Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    Okay, my basic opinion is that this is a dumb, dumb conversation, and of no real use to anyone. The science is inconclusive and frequently contradictory, so having a quasi-educated debate just wastes everyone's time. Nobody is gonna get all excited about you or anyone else being a forum scientist. STOP getting all worked up about what amounts to you trying to justify to yourself what you're doing or want to be doing. You're not authorities, and we don't really care even if you are, your rules are probably bull**** anyway. Post what you like, what works for you, makes you feel good, and has been successful for you losing weight/dropping fat, OBVIOUSLY we need all three kinds of food to live, it's just a matter of how much of each we're getting, and it is very much a personal thing.

    Here's my suggestion: play around with it. Keep your calories constant, and mess around with your percentages until you feel best the largest % of the time. Tracking what you're eating makes a big difference, because you can see what's going on. The main thing with losing weight is making sure your diet is something you personally can stick to. Everything else comes second. If it stops working, play around with it some more until it does, and not just your percentages. Try fasting/VLCD one day a week, or change up how many calories you have on any given day, or eat maintenance for a week.

    Here's my experience: when I tried Atkins for a couple weeks, my brain shut down, I had headaches and low energy and felt AWFUL. I wasn't tracking my food, so it could have been not having enough carbs to fuel my brain, or it could have been that I just wasn't eating enough calories to keep going. I don't know which it was and I don't care, it was an awful experience.

    Since I started dieting this time, I've played around with a few things, while discussing it with my personal trainer (who focuses on weight loss and injury recovery). Right now I'm about 45% fat, 30% carbs, and 25% protein, though I mix it up a fair bit, generally ±5% on each of them on any given day. This is where I personally feel my best, have the most energy and sense of well-being, feel the least amount of hunger, and feel the least deprived. I enjoy my food, and I rarely wish I could eat more. I mix it up, so some days I get sugars from honey in my greek yogurt, others I'll have rice, sometimes I'll have chips, or a nice big baked potato with butter, or a nice sandwich. I'm out to lose 1/4 of my body weight, so all the debate about 'optimal results' is really pointless for me. I eat fewer calories than MFP recommended for me (1800 instead of 2400), but I feel good, am never seriously hungry unless I've waited until lunch to eat, and I actually enjoy my diet, having gone more than 200 calories over only twice in the last month. As for results, I've lost 3 inches from my belly and 2 inches from my butt in that time, so clearly it's working just fine.

    On days where I have a lot more carbs, or eat really big meals, I've found that I'm a lot more likely to feel really hungry, and experience spikes where I'm sleepy after eating, or shaky and lightheaded before eating (something to do with insulin or glycogen or whatever). Days with a lot more protein than usual I feel the least hungry, but the most deprived of my favorite foods. Days with a lot more fat, I feel kind of greasy and mildly nauseous (much more than 50% is a LOT of fat). The balance point I'm at is the one that allows me to love my life the most while still losing weight at a reasonable pace. And THAT is what's REALLY important. Your balance point might be the same, or it might be different. Pay attention to how you feel-- you're more of an expert on your own body.
  • beernutz
    beernutz Posts: 136
    Options
    [snip]
    Nutritionally speaking, carbs are ESSENTIAL. First, the brain cannot use any other form of energy. (In a pinch, our body can convert proteins into something like carbs to keep our brains functioning, but there are side effects, ketones being the least impactful.) Also, our bodies are very bad at burning fat in the absence of carbohydrates.

    Do all carbs break down into sugar? Yes, specifically into glucose. This is the only form our body can actually use. Are simple carbs bad? Not necessarily. They do digest faster, thus impacting blood sugar more, but they are also a source of near-instant energy. And in natural foods they are paired with other nutrients (think of all the good stuff in fruits, which are full of fructose, or dairy, which has lactose). Too much can definitely bad! Same thing for complex carbs. Our digestive system works much better when we have enough fiber, and studies have also linked fiber to heart and vascular health. Fiber is a complex carb, and is usually accompanied by other, more "digestible" complex carbs.

    The best route is to have a moderate amount of carbs (roughly 40% of your calories from carbs), get as many of them as complex carbs as possible, and get most of your carbs from natural sources (ie fruit, veggies, whole grains, beans, etc). Avoid lots of refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup (while natural fructose is okay for you, the adding of fructose is artificial and has negative effects). A well balanced diet is going to meet all your nutritional needs (vitamins and such as well as carbs/proteins/fats) and promote overall health.

    Good god there is so much misinformation in one post I don't know where to start.

    First, carbs are NOT essential to a diet. Otherwise there'd be dead low-carber's on every street corner. Seriously, there are people who have only eaten trace carbs for YEARS--how have they managed to survive? Humans survived for tens of thousands of years without carbohydrate in their diet and now, all of a sudden, we're all depend on it? Yeah, pull the other one. There are protein deficiency diseases and fat deficiency diseases but I defy you to name a carb deficiency disease. You can't because there isn't one.

    The brain doesn't use just carbs for energy, it uses glucose and thankfully for me and for you your liver can convert both protein and fat into the stuff. The fat in your body and ketones in your blood can supply more than enough supplemental energy for almost all other activity.

    All carbs don't break down into glucose either unless you are a cow, because I'm pretty sure neither of our bodies will break down fiber. Don't get me started on insulin and insulin resistance.

    As to your advice on what the "best" percentage of carbs to intake, if it is as well founded as the rest of your post I'll let it speak for itself.
  • Dom_m
    Dom_m Posts: 337 Member
    Options
    Well this has all been fun. My advice to the OP is read the first 2-3 posts and ignore the rest. You got great answers straight off the bat.

    As for the rest of the discussion, mynameisuntz is generally right, as far as I can tell, but mate, You can be as correct as you like, but if you just antagonise the other people in the conversation, all your achieving is your own entertainment (and mine, so thanks!)

    Anyway, there's one instance where timing of carb consumption is definitely important, and that's exercise. If you fast for 18 hours, then enter a race, I guarantee you wont perform as well as you would if you ate a decent amount of carbs in the lead up. The Australian Institute of Sport has a pretty simple explanation of carb loading: http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition/factsheets/competition_and_training2/carbohydrate_loading
    They don't cite scientific literature, but I guarantee you they're a credible bunch. We spend a higher proportion of our tax dollars funding their research than pretty much any other country :)
    (plus, I've participated in their trials, so I know first hand that they perform scientific studies before expressing opinions, and I'm an economist with statistical training, so I know how to recognise a good research methodology it when I see it).

    From personal experience, I've run a couple of ultra marathons (85-100km), and timing your food intake makes a massive difference both in the build up and during the race (we had to carry ~20lb packs the whole way, so you can imagine they were long races, and you definitely needed to keep eating at regular intervals).


    As for whether carbs are essential. Technically its glucose that we need. Carbs are a good source of glucose, but we can get it from other places, as has been pointed out. So they're not technically *essential* for bodily function. They're very *useful* if you want to have lots of energy though! Personally, I don't track macros at all, but I've got fairly moderate fitness goals so it doesn't make much of a difference to me.
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options
    Post what you like, what works for you, makes you feel good, and has been successful for you losing weight/dropping fat, OBVIOUSLY we need all three kinds of food to live, it's just a matter of how much of each we're getting, and it is very much a personal thing.

    Wow.

    You go on a tirade about this not being an important conversation and then basically bro-science the entire subject matter. What you say in the quoted part is COMPLETELY FALSE. People posting what "works for them" is not a good method of dietary, nutritional or exercise methods. Statistical analysis based of CONTROL GROUPS and scientific data is what matters, not what some chump on the internet (me, you or anyone else) has to say.

    When someone quotes an article that has sources from numerous reputable sites, that is a good scientific method of approaching a subject. Random opinions on the internet are NOT a good scientific method of approaching a subject.

    And no, you do NOT need all 3 kinds of food to live. Ketosis and gluconeogenesis support my position. This is why people can survive on very very low carb diets.
  • Elizabeth_C34
    Elizabeth_C34 Posts: 6,376 Member
    Options
    I'm SO confused on nutrition in general. But my specific concern today is carbs. Are they good or bad?

    Is it a source issue (like fruit sugars aren't as bad as refined sugar)?

    How many should I be eating a day?

    Is it one of those things I could/should minimize?

    Does low carb create a carb defienciency and cause medical problems?

    Any help would be appreciated?

    Each person here will likely give you a different answer. The thing is to find what works for you.

    For me, I try to minimize my processed carbs (refined sugars, carbs from bleached grains, etc.). Sofar so good. I do eat a good amount of fruit and starchy veggies, but I also eat a lot of lean protein to go with it. I was on low carb for a while, but struggled to maintain it. Now I'm on what I like to call "lower" carb (nice happy medium). I also stick to only whole grain breads. :)
  • abtruse1
    abtruse1 Posts: 13
    Options
    Post what you like, what works for you, makes you feel good, and has been successful for you losing weight/dropping fat, OBVIOUSLY we need all three kinds of food to live, it's just a matter of how much of each we're getting, and it is very much a personal thing.

    Wow.

    You go on a tirade about this not being an important conversation and then basically bro-science the entire subject matter. What you say in the quoted part is COMPLETELY FALSE. People posting what "works for them" is not a good method of dietary, nutritional or exercise methods. Statistical analysis based of CONTROL GROUPS and scientific data is what matters, not what some chump on the internet (me, you or anyone else) has to say.

    When someone quotes an article that has sources from numerous reputable sites, that is a good scientific method of approaching a subject. Random opinions on the internet are NOT a good scientific method of approaching a subject.

    And no, you do NOT need all 3 kinds of food to live. Ketosis and gluconeogenesis support my position. This is why people can survive on very very low carb diets.

    but isnt the idea in here to share what works? Since every body type is different, it would make sense no?
    For example dont some peoples body types work better with higher carbs, and others with proteins then others? If so. Arent they right to share there success for someone else to try?
  • katschi
    katschi Posts: 689 Member
    Options
    I'm heading over to the HCG and Vegan threads for some peace and quiet. :bigsmile:
  • Dagnytaggert
    Dagnytaggert Posts: 18
    Options
    I agree with whoever said there is a lot of misinformation and conflicting arguments. The best I ever read was "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. In the end you have to make a judgement call, but it never hurts to learn a little about what each side is saying.

    ** edited because I can't spell...
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    I agree with whoever said there is a lot of misinformation and conflicting arguments. The best I ever read was "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. In the end you have to make a judgement call, but it never hurts to learn a little about what each side is saying.

    ** edited because I can't spell...
    Forget everything he told you about insulin, because he cherry-picked data and misrepresented results.
  • RangerSteve
    RangerSteve Posts: 437
    Options
    Post what you like, what works for you, makes you feel good, and has been successful for you losing weight/dropping fat, OBVIOUSLY we need all three kinds of food to live, it's just a matter of how much of each we're getting, and it is very much a personal thing.

    Wow.

    You go on a tirade about this not being an important conversation and then basically bro-science the entire subject matter. What you say in the quoted part is COMPLETELY FALSE. People posting what "works for them" is not a good method of dietary, nutritional or exercise methods. Statistical analysis based of CONTROL GROUPS and scientific data is what matters, not what some chump on the internet (me, you or anyone else) has to say.

    When someone quotes an article that has sources from numerous reputable sites, that is a good scientific method of approaching a subject. Random opinions on the internet are NOT a good scientific method of approaching a subject.

    And no, you do NOT need all 3 kinds of food to live. Ketosis and gluconeogenesis support my position. This is why people can survive on very very low carb diets.

    but isnt the idea in here to share what works? Since every body type is different, it would make sense no?
    For example dont some peoples body types work better with higher carbs, and others with proteins then others? If so. Arent they right to share there success for someone else to try?

    Everyone is free to share their opinions. That's the point of this website. There are a few problems to this approach though:

    1) N = 1. A control group (yourself) of one person isn't an effective way to show what "works" and what doesn't work. Some people can eat 5,000 calories a day and lose weight. If they come on here talking about how everyone should try it, all it will do is slow people down who are confused as it is.

    2) Science > opinion. When a group of professionals put together a study with 15 people, 50 people or do a meta-analysis of thousands of people, the data they receive from those studies outweighs opinion.

    3) If opinions and sharing what works is the best method, all you're going to have is THOUSANDS of competing opinions talking about what works and then everyone will be confused.

    4) Regardless of sharing opinions, posting FALSE information is never good. For instance, if someone says that carbohydrates are essential in a diet, they are posting false information. Are carbohydrates good in a diet? Sure, I like them as much as the next guy but they are not essential and science backs that claim up. (ketosis and gluconeogenesis) Therefore, opinions that are directly contradictory to science are not good.

    There are numerous other points I can make but I think I've said enough for now. I do not have a problem with opinions from people, just blatant mis-information.
  • katschi
    katschi Posts: 689 Member
    Options
    I agree with whoever said there is a lot of misinformation and conflicting arguments. The best I ever read was "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. In the end you have to make a judgement call, but it never hurts to learn a little about what each side is saying.

    ** edited because I can't spell...
    Forget everything he told you about insulin, because he cherry-picked data and misrepresented results.

    mmmmmmm ... cherry-picking. My favorite activity. I wonder how many calories that burns and if I should eat those back.

    Of course, I'd probably be eating some cherries if I'm picking them so I'd probably come out even, eh?
  • abtruse1
    abtruse1 Posts: 13
    Options
    I can see how misinformation can get thrown around on the internet so easily. And I get it, that we should try and post as educated information as we can.

    but i do have to say, as a newb on here, I notice that there seems to be a lot of sarcasm and hostility to wards one another.
    that doesn't seem to help matters any, (IMO), or make people feel good about posting on the site in fear of retribution to there post.
    i can see disagreeing with someone (and even better if you have the facts to back it up of course). But shouldn't it done in a more compassionate educational type way, instead of brow beating?
  • Dom_m
    Dom_m Posts: 337 Member
    Options
    mynameisuntz is generally right, as far as I can tell, but mate,

    I'm not too sure I stand by this actually. I've just been procrastinating for an hour or so and trawling the message boards here (which I haven't really done for quite a few months), and I think it would be very difficult to participate in discussions regularly without getting abrupt. Just stick to being right!! :)

    edit: hehe, direct contradiction of the above post!!! If you can summon your inner-zen its definitely more polite and you'll probably convince more people, but I can see how it would be a head-banging-wall exercise.
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    Well this has all been fun. My advice to the OP is read the first 2-3 posts and ignore the rest. You got great answers straight off the bat.

    As for the rest of the discussion, mynameisuntz is generally right, as far as I can tell, but mate, you don't have to be a prick about it. You can be as correct as you like, but if you just antagonise the other people in the conversation, all your achieving is your own entertainment (and mine, so thanks!)
    I post for show; a forum entertainer. Glad I succeeded somewhere!
    Anyway, there's one instance where timing of carb consumption is definitely important, and that's exercise. If you fast for 18 hours, then enter a race, I guarantee you wont perform as well as you would if you ate a decent amount of carbs in the lead up.
    Bingo. And when you say exercise, ESPECIALLY endurance activity. The two major conditions where meal timing is relevant are the two things you listed: long periods of fasting (or not-so-long periods, but followed by endurance activity), or multiple glycogen-depleting activities in a day's time.
    I'm not too sure I stand by this actually. I've just been procrastinating for an hour or so and trawling the message boards here (which I haven't really done for quite a few months), and I think it would be very difficult to participate in discussions regularly without getting abrupt. Just stick to being right!! :)

    edit: hehe, direct contradiction of the above post!!! If you can summon your inner-zen its definitely more polite and you'll probably convince more people, but I can see how it would be a head-banging-wall exercise.
    It's tough, man. I'm a good person. I am. I can confidently make that claim. And if these discussions happened in person, it'd have a totally light-hearted tone. But on the internet, it's tough. It's like when you tell your kid to not do something, and they go on and do it 50 times over. You try so hard to get your message across and convey it clearly, but people still somehow mess it up or do the opposite. It's tough not to get aggravated :\

Categories