INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER
Replies
-
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »Happy Day Light Savings - Spring has Sprung!
Weighing-in in the mornings may not be entirely accurate as it seems to go right back up during the day, but it's keeping me motivated seeing the little losses anyway - I just want the scales to be fluctuating on the 90's side by the end of the month instead of in the 100's!
SW: 103.40 kg - 227.95 lbs.
GW: (for this month) 99.60 kgs - 219.58 lbs.
Need to lose 4.0 kgs - 8.8 lbs. (1kg per week or 2.20 lbs. per week)
Weigh in dates:
09/03 Sat: 103.40kg - 227.95 lbs.
09/10 Sat: 102.10kg - 225.09 lbs. (- 2.86 lbs.)
09/17 Sat: 101.50kg - 223.76 lbs. (- 1.33 lbs.)
09/24 Sat: 100.40kg - 221.34 lbs. (- 2.42 lbs.)
09/30 Fri:
Congrats on your progress!2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »OP, if you start to exercise you should probably increase calories a bit, especially since you want to make this a long term game. Honestly, I would get a food scale and have my calories at 1500. At 4 weeks you can reassess your progress. I did something similar and found I was able to push harder and make more progress at 2300 calories as compared to 1800.
This game is not just cutting calories low, its about finding an overall balance between a deficit and an amount of calories that will allow for long term sustainment.
If you do stay with 1200 take note of any changes in energy or awareness. If there is decline, increase calories.
Thanks for that advice - I do want this to be sustainable of course - but the on the other hand I want to reach the goal post quickly, as I am focused on my wedding in April (this time doing it for myself), so I guess I am aiming for a reasonably quick loss with 27 weeks to get down at least into the 70's.
Do you mind me asking whether your cals are set higher - is that the exercise?
Psulemon is wise to advise sustainability. Pick numbers that are comfortable for you to lose on. You have to set your sights at slowly working towards eventually eating at maintenance level for your goal weight. Knowing that calorie range ahead of time will keep you at your eventual goal weight and prevent you from gaining weight.
As I am near goal I try not to go over maintenance calories when I take a diet break. Then I go back to reducing if I go up in weight by 2 pounds. But I'm not too drastic because my body rebels big time with strong urges to eat and cravings if I cut to vigorously. And because my deficit is small now I can easily gain weight if I frequently go over maintenance calories. You are doing terrific, BTW!2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »OP, if you start to exercise you should probably increase calories a bit, especially since you want to make this a long term game. Honestly, I would get a food scale and have my calories at 1500. At 4 weeks you can reassess your progress. I did something similar and found I was able to push harder and make more progress at 2300 calories as compared to 1800.
This game is not just cutting calories low, its about finding an overall balance between a deficit and an amount of calories that will allow for long term sustainment.
If you do stay with 1200 take note of any changes in energy or awareness. If there is decline, increase calories.
Thanks for that advice - I do want this to be sustainable of course - but the on the other hand I want to reach the goal post quickly, as I am focused on my wedding in April (this time doing it for myself), so I guess I am aiming for a reasonably quick loss with 27 weeks to get down at least into the 70's.
Do you mind me asking whether your cals are set higher - is that the exercise?
Psulemon is wise to advise sustainability. Pick numbers that are comfortable for you to lose on. You have to set your sights at slowly working towards eventually eating at maintenance level for your goal weight. Knowing that calorie range ahead of time will keep you at your eventual goal weight and prevent you from gaining weight.
As I am near goal I try not to go over maintenance calories when I take a diet break. Then I go back to reducing if I go up in weight by 2 pounds. But I'm not too drastic because my body rebels big time with strong urges to eat and cravings if I cut to vigorously. And because my deficit is small now I can easily gain weight if I frequently go over maintenance calories. You are doing terrific, BTW!
Great points. Different people take different approaches. Loss rate is much slower for me now than 40 years ago.
Some shoot for 1/2 pound a week just to learn a new way of eating at first. Actually if one can not make that work then 2 pounds per week is going to be a struggle. Seldom is weight loss the same week after week. Best of continued success.3 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »OP, if you start to exercise you should probably increase calories a bit, especially since you want to make this a long term game. Honestly, I would get a food scale and have my calories at 1500. At 4 weeks you can reassess your progress. I did something similar and found I was able to push harder and make more progress at 2300 calories as compared to 1800.
This game is not just cutting calories low, its about finding an overall balance between a deficit and an amount of calories that will allow for long term sustainment.
If you do stay with 1200 take note of any changes in energy or awareness. If there is decline, increase calories.
Thanks for that advice - I do want this to be sustainable of course - but the on the other hand I want to reach the goal post quickly, as I am focused on my wedding in April (this time doing it for myself), so I guess I am aiming for a reasonably quick loss with 27 weeks to get down at least into the 70's.
Do you mind me asking whether your cals are set higher - is that the exercise?
If you want to see the biggest changes in your body, then I will highly recommend lifting. Every person I know and work with has see huge improvements when they lift. Also, when you work to maintain muscle mass, there will be larger changes in body fat %. And honestly, body fat % > weight reductions. Heck, I can't tell you how many underweight people we work with in the gaining weight section and many have issues with stomach fat. It's because they have poor body composition. It's one of the reasons I would suggest a slightly smaller deficit, higher amounts of protein and a progressive resistance program like strongcurves or even a body resistance program like you are your own gym.
In terms of my calories, I maintain at 3000. I am currently doing an aggressive cut @ 2100 calories with protein between 1g per lb of lbm and weight, full a custom 3 day full body routine and add 2 to 3 days of HIIT/flexibility training (all with a desk job). One day a week, I do tend to bump calories to around 2500 to 2700 (last night 3100) for sanity.6 -
I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?1 -
I just wanted to share this, because there's a lot of anti-science talk going on on this thread.
Scientific claims aren't "always changing" the way they're being talked about here; they are in a constant state of refinement. We're not going to find out tomorrow that the sun revolves around the earth. It's just not going to happen. We may find out that it doesn't do this EXACTLY how we thought it does, but it still doesn't revolve around the earth. And that's no support for the idea that because "Science is always changing" that science is somehow unreliable or a waste of time. Science RARELY just up and changes it's mind on a set of facts. When science "changes" what it's doing is refining the statement it has made to be clearer, more correct, more accurate. But the basis of that statement remains true. We knew atoms existed before we could actually see them, and when we could finally see them, we confirmed a few things we believed about them as well as ADDED information that we didn't formerly have. But we didn't find out we were totally wrong and atoms do not in fact exist. We just found out more information about their existence That's what "science is always changing" really means. Not that we're gonna find out tomorrow the earth really was flat after all, but that maybe rather than perfectly spherical, it's a little oblong. Science changes by adding information to already existing bodies of facts, modifying them a LITTLE, not changing their minds entirely. The scientific method is the greatest tool we have for understanding the world around us. If there are errors it is self correcting. The only thing that will ever prove a scientific finding wrong is just better science.
When you read a "Shocking new discovery made by scientists!" in the paper, you're not hearing the Facts. You're not hearing something that is in line with the current model commonly accepted by the scientific community. You're hearing an over-stated, overblown, exaggerated all to hell HYPOTHESIS. The hypothesis is what the papers and magazines print because it's interesting. When a scientists says "hey I wonder if the coffee is what's killing them? Let's test that" the magazine reports "Coffee is killing us all! A shocking new study says that drinking coffee may be the reason you're fat and gonna die of heart disease!". That article may have NOTHING at all to do with the study, because what sells papers is that headline. The Hypothesis makes for the most interesting read, and science editors gotta make money, so that's what makes it into the article. Not the 30 following studies showing how the first study was totally flawed. Not the actual scientist who ran the study saying "but hey wait, I only tested 30 people, and even then there's a margin of error, and more importantly, I was trying to see if coffee is killing specifically this subset of people who consume fewer calories due to coffee, and specifically, those who are already underweight and at risk for X". When you see "Science is changing all the time" you're seeing *hypotheses* changing. Which they're supposed to do. What changes all the time (again, by design) are hypotheses -- not theories (a grouping of FACTS that describe one model of how X works, in science, theory means something very different from how we use it in the common tongue), and certainly not facts. A hypothesis is, after all, an early part of the scientific method; a tentative explanation for something which is then tested by experimentation and more observation. And science doesn't make claims about hypotheses, it TESTS them. Then, if the hypothesis can be repeatedly, rigorously tested and proven over and over and over again, then and only then, it can be accepted as a truthful statement about reality.
And most importantly of all, if you come across a "scientific claim" that seems to completely contradict an existing model (body of facts) stop for a minute and nerd the heck out of that claim. It is incredibly rare, so rare we're talking almost never (think back to Galileo), for some single new piece of evidence in some single study to completely change an already existing scientific model of reality. No one is gonna come up with anything tomorrow that will completely disprove CICO. All that will happen is that that portion of thermodynamics might be refined to be EVEN MORE accurate than it already is. We're REALLY SURE the earth revolves around the sun. Positive. If tomorrow something in science "changes" that, it will only "change" it in such a way as to make it more accurate than it already is. "The earth revolves the sun AND... BY... BECAUSE..." Science "changing" is simply the addition of a modifier, and is Frequently the addition of SUPPORTING evidence for the already existing model.10 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?
I found the learning curve was steep in my case as well. The math is a 'guess' at best. While I counted up my calories using the best guess info out there it was helpful since I had no idea about what kind of calories was in what kind of foods.
For the past two years I just weigh myself each morning. That gives me the net results of my eating as in CICO which really can never be totally calculated at home anyway. If I am gaining my net CI is greater than my net CO. If maintaining then CI=CO and if losing naturally my CI is < CO. This cuts out all food weighing and calorie counting for the most part.
Counting and weighing can be a real learning process on the start and I am not anti food weighing or calorie counting but after yo yo dieting for 40 years I made a commitment this time around to stop dieting and just eat to improve my health markers. For 18 months I have maintained at 200 with a range of 195 to 205 without counting or food weighing, any cravings or going hungry causing me to think about food between meals and often I go 10 hours without eating almost daily.
While this works for me just keep doing what you are doing and modify your WOE as needed. I do eat around 2500 calories daily with my macro so I stay stuffed most all of the time. The macro does vary but it is more or less 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% mostly saturated fats. PUFA's fats I try to avoid.
#1 in my case I had to figure out the best Macro of Carbs/Protein/Fats then I looked at the about of calories making up my macro. I did all this for pain management and found I needed to keep my daily carbs <50 grams and in my case I left off sugar and all grains. 30 days later my pain dropped from levels of 7-8 to 2-3 so I knew I had hit pay dirt. My weight loss of 50 pounds early on was really just a side effect of my successful pain management way of eating (WOE).2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?
Maintenance is just eating at your TDEE. TDEE is just another way to think of the sweet spot where calories in = calories out. No weight loss or gain. There are several TDEE calculators online. TDEE at your current weight minus about 500 should be your weight loss daily goal calories. A 500 calorie deficit for 7 days gives you a 3500 calorie weekly deficit. 3500 calories is a pound. One pound per week is about as fast as you should lose to be sustainable. Hope that helps.2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?
Collect data for another 3 weeks and then we can actually figure out your average maintenance. I generally do not include the first 2 weeks worth of data due to huge swing. And then you continue to recalculate as you go to refine your maintenance or TDEE. Below is how that math is working out for you currently. Hopefully going forward you can just plug the formula into an excel and modify based on current results.
Since I don't have access to your food diary, i have to extrapolate your intake based on what you said.
Calories in
Average daily intake: 1200
Calories out
((2.86 + 1.33 + 2.42)/3) = 2.203333
Calories in a lb = 3500
Estimated weekly deficit
2.203333 * 3500 = 7,711.666667
Estimated daily deficit
7,711.666667/7 = 1101.666667
Estimated daily maintenance
1200 + 1101.66667 = 2301.666667
So that is how the math plays out. But what this data shows you, is that as long as you eat under 2300 calories, you should lose weight. Now, this is a continuous feedback loop, meaning that something like this needs to be updated throughout your weight loss because your TDEE will go down (generally, even though mine didn't) because as you weigh less, your body will burn less calories through daily activities (NEAT) and exercise.
As noted earlier, this would confirm that eating 1500 calories would still put you in a good position to lose weight, but it will also provide you a little extra room to get more nutrition to support long term goals.1 -
-
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, I think you quoted part of the answer.
Average weight loss over the 3 weeks x 3500 calories.0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, I think you quoted part of the answer.
Average weight loss over the 3 weeks x 3500 calories.
Sorry, no, I wanted to know what each of the numbers 2.86 + 1.33 + 2.42 / 3 signifies.
ETA, I get it now.
0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying, I think you quoted part of the answer.
Average weight loss over the 3 weeks x 3500 calories.
Sorry, no, I wanted to know what each of the numbers 2.86 + 1.33 + 2.42 / 3 signifies.
OP's weekly weight loss (on prior page):ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
Weigh in dates:
09/03 Sat: 103.40kg - 227.95 lbs.
09/10 Sat: 102.10kg - 225.09 lbs. (- 2.86 lbs.)
09/17 Sat: 101.50kg - 223.76 lbs. (- 1.33 lbs.)
09/24 Sat: 100.40kg - 221.34 lbs. (- 2.42 lbs.)
09/30 Fri:0 -
The clouds cleared. Just too early in the morning for me! Thank you.2
-
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?
I would keep it up, since it's working, but understanding that you can eat more and lose if you want to, and see how it goes and how I felt. If you are exercising I'd eat back some calories, because 1200 is low, though. Like psulemon said, after a few more weeks you can start estimating maintenance calories. (I'd ignore calories out and just figure 3500*lost lbs + total calories eaten all divided by total number of days, but someone can walk you through that when you get there.)
I started with lots to lose and ate at 1250 (soon 1250 net when I got a handle on my exercise calories), and was fine -- cutting low was actually much easier for me with more to lose, although some have different experiences. Getting exercise calories and being able to eat more overall was helpful, though -- I think I would have had a hard time sustaining 1250 without them, as I like some more variety than they were allowing me. (Boredom or simply liking food is more of an issue for me than hunger.)1 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »I've been reading lots of other other posts to try and work out what my maintenance calories would be and to be honest I feel as dumb as can be - it is all numbers and abbreviations and makes no sense at all to my un-mathematical and un-fitness-wise mind!
I am losing some weight on around 1200 calories per day - but I must say the more I find out the more confused I am on what is the right way to be doing it. I have a long way to go before I hit my goal weight though and have to think about 'maintaining' - so should I just keep doing what I'm doing for now?
I go by this guideline for maintenance...
Sedentary (Minimal Exercise)
Weight Maintenance: 12-14 x weight in lbs
Moderately Active (3-4 times per week)
Weight Maintenance: 14-16 x weight in lbs
Very Active (5-7 times per week)
Weight Maintenance: 16-18 x weight in lbs
1 -
The absolute easiest way to work out your maintenance calories is to look at your current weight loss rate. Take the average number you are losing every week, then multiply it by 3500 for pounds or 7700 for kg. Then take the resulting number and divide it by 7, then add it to your average daily intake to get your maintenance.
Broken into steps, let's assume for this example that you are losing 0.5 kg per week and your average daily intake is 1500 calories.
1. Multiply lost weight by 7700 for kg: 0.5 x 7700 = 3850
2. Divide by 7: 3850 / 7 = 550
3. Add to daily intake: 1500 + 550 = 2050
2050 calories would be your average maintenance at your average current activity.2 -
You guys continue to blow me away with how amazingly helpful you are and how you so generously give of your own knowledge and experience to me. I'm feeling humbled and more determined to keep it up with you all here supporting me. How do I share my food diary with others does anyone know?3
-
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »You guys continue to blow me away with how amazingly helpful you are and how you so generously give of your own knowledge and experience to me. I'm feeling humbled and more determined to keep it up with you all here supporting me. How do I share my food diary with others does anyone know?
If you're on a computer, all the way at the top under settings, go to Diary settings and at the bottom you can switch it between private, only visible to friends, open to everyone or password protected.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »I just wanted to share this, because there's a lot of anti-science talk going on on this thread.
Scientific claims aren't "always changing" the way they're being talked about here; they are in a constant state of refinement..... Science "changing" is simply the addition of a modifier, and is Frequently the addition of SUPPORTING evidence for the already existing model.
Thank you so much for this as it does make sense. I am getting very educated on this journey
2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »I just wanted to share this, because there's a lot of anti-science talk going on on this thread.
Scientific claims aren't "always changing" the way they're being talked about here; they are in a constant state of refinement..... Science "changing" is simply the addition of a modifier, and is Frequently the addition of SUPPORTING evidence for the already existing model.
Thank you so much for this as it does make sense. I am getting very educated on this journey
You know why this time it's going to work for you long term, and you'll never have to diet again
Because of the knowledge, that boils down to the simple calories in and calories out equation
Because of beginning to recognise the difference between knowledge and fads
It's illuminating
And I do believe you've got this3 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »I just wanted to share this, because there's a lot of anti-science talk going on on this thread.
Scientific claims aren't "always changing" the way they're being talked about here; they are in a constant state of refinement..... Science "changing" is simply the addition of a modifier, and is Frequently the addition of SUPPORTING evidence for the already existing model.
Thank you so much for this as it does make sense. I am getting very educated on this journey
Big kudos for listening and taking it all in. We all had our "engrained' thoughts on how this all works when we got here. Those who learn and are willing to listen to the people who have done it tend to be the ones that stick around and become the successful people giving out the advice.
4 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »I just wanted to share this, because there's a lot of anti-science talk going on on this thread.
Scientific claims aren't "always changing" the way they're being talked about here; they are in a constant state of refinement..... Science "changing" is simply the addition of a modifier, and is Frequently the addition of SUPPORTING evidence for the already existing model.
Thank you so much for this as it does make sense. I am getting very educated on this journey
Big kudos for listening and taking it all in. We all had our "engrained' thoughts on how this all works when we got here. Those who learn and are willing to listen to the people who have done it tend to be the ones that stick around and become the successful people giving out the advice.
This is true
I give you an insightful for your insight2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »I just wanted to share this, because there's a lot of anti-science talk going on on this thread.
Scientific claims aren't "always changing" the way they're being talked about here; they are in a constant state of refinement..... Science "changing" is simply the addition of a modifier, and is Frequently the addition of SUPPORTING evidence for the already existing model.
Thank you so much for this as it does make sense. I am getting very educated on this journey
Big kudos for listening and taking it all in. We all had our "engrained' thoughts on how this all works when we got here. Those who learn and are willing to listen to the people who have done it tend to be the ones that stick around and become the successful people giving out the advice.
This is true
I give you an insightful for your insight
Well, you get an awesome. Just for being...well...awesome. 1 -
stevencloser wrote: »[quote="If you're on a computer, all the way at the top under settings, go to Diary settings and at the bottom you can switch it between private, only visible to friends, open to everyone or password protected.
Thanks! I have changed my Diary setting to 'Friends' so if anyone wants to be my friend and watch how many spicy apple deep fried donuts with cream, salt & vinegar chips with dip, and bottles of wine I am not eating or drinking - then please 'befriend' me!
Being watched may also make me get off this lazy toosh and go to the gym instead of letting my membership go to waste
0 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »...I think I piled on the weight subconsciously, as I knew our relationship was all wrong... I didn't want people to know about the physical and verbal abuse and eating was my solace. I have hidden behind my weight ever since with the attitude of accept me as I am, but have never really been happy with myself...
I wonder whether a lot of people's weight gain is attributed to what is going on with us mentally and emotionally?
I could have written that, and the answer is yes, a thousand times YES! I really thought I'd worked through everything before I started to lose weight this year, but some issues I thought I'd resolved pop up again in new ways from time to time. I've learned to give myself time to work through it again, and then keep going. All the science-based knowledge of how to lose weight does you no good if you aren't in a good-enough place mentally that you can decide to make good decisions.
At one point you asked about other benefits of IF. For me personally, a big one is that exercising self-control in that aspect of life greatly improves my self-control in others. Telling myself "I don't need a snack" at 9pm (because I really don't) or that "I can have a donut if there are any left when my eating window starts at 10am" (because I know I'm not hungry at 7am) has translated to only buying groceries that I wouldn't be embarrassed to let my doc see in my cart, even when my all-time favorite cookies are 50% off that week. And to heading out for daily walks because losing the way-too-close-to-being-called-cankles is more important to me long-term than being a couch cocoon - unless the Broncos game is on, of course
.
I suppose that increased self-control is more a behavioral than strictly physiological benefit of IF, but healthier behaviors --> healthier physiology, and so far this is working for me.1 -
[quote="
At one point you asked about other benefits of IF. For me personally, a big one is that exercising self-control in that aspect of life greatly improves my self-control in others.
I suppose that increased self-control is more a behavioral than strictly physiological benefit of IF, but healthier behaviors --> healthier physiology, and so far this is working for me.
Thank you. I so agree. I feel like I have control over IF and finally accomplishing something to change my habits and that boosts up my confidence, motivation and willpower to take control of other areas of my life.1 -
The research regarding sugar that I spoke about earlier in this thread is featured on MFPs blog today if anyone wants to read it. Harvard study.
The science is only as reliable as the intentions and honesty of the "respected" scientists and researchers.
Sugar is fine. Then sugar causes cancer.
Fat makes you fat, now fat is healthy.
Eggs are bad. Eggs are good.
Coffee is good. Coffee is bad.
And no folks, I'm not talking about gravity or if the earth is flat.
I'm talking about diet and nutrition.
4 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »The research regarding sugar that I spoke about earlier in this thread is featured on MFPs blog today if anyone wants to read it. Harvard study.
The science is only as reliable as the intentions and honesty of the "respected" scientists and researchers.
Sugar is fine. Then sugar causes cancer.
Fat makes you fat, now fat is healthy.
Eggs are bad. Eggs are good.
Coffee is good. Coffee is bad.
And no folks, I'm not talking about gravity or if the earth is flat.
I'm talking about diet and nutrition.
It's only that different if you do it like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77GGn-E607E
As others have said, the actual scientific consensus rarely if ever completely throws something out of the window and starts claiming the opposite. You mustn't confuse news articles about single studies with science as a whole.4 -
I never said anything about throwing anything out of a window. I only suggested that posters read an article. An article that is now posted on MFPs blog.
Are posters afraid to read an article? I don't think so, at least not the ones I know.
My point was to be open to new concepts. To read all sides, and not just the studies that confirm what you already believe.
Also, to question what you read, as you don't necessarily know why it was written, or the researcher's motivation.
It's not a new concept. Reading and making up your own mind.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions