What do you do when your stomach won't stop growling?

2»

Replies

  • Mary_Anastasia
    Mary_Anastasia Posts: 267 Member
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Get your thyroid treated properly, for starters.

    This!! Plus stop spouting bad advise in other threads when you don't have a clue what you're doing.

    Thanks for your concern, muscles, but if you'd put your mind to more work when thoughtfully analyzing my posts, you'd realize that I avoid giving solid advice. I work in law-making, you learn to rarely say anything concretely.
  • Mary_Anastasia
    Mary_Anastasia Posts: 267 Member
    frantzcr wrote: »
    I'm having a lot of the same struggles. I also frequently feel hungry. What's been helping me is not waiting until I'm starving before I eat. If I feel hunger coming on then I eat. But with that said I usually wait ~20mins to make sure that I am actually hungry and not just wanting food because I love it. I eat ~200 calories every couple hours. This way I feel like I'm always eating and satisfying my hunger but keeping it at 1,500calories per day. If I don't eat when I am hungry I quickly feel dizzy and get a head ache. But that is only when I really push myself to go several hours without my little snacks. Also, I plan yummy suppers so that way I have something to look forward to. Such as if I don't eat this now then I can have this later mentality. When I'm really in a bind and trying to hold out on eating I chug water. One this helps fill up your stomach, two neutralizes some of the burning from the stomach acid when it is empty, and three it ups your water intake. Wow this is getting to be a lot longer than intended! Haha. Anyways yea I eat small amount of food regularly and allow myself ~600cal supper to look forward to. I think since I've ate super large amounts for soooo many years now my stomach is stretched. With time I am hoping that smaller portions will allow it to adjust back to a normal level and my cravings won't be as intense. Oh and I agree what the previous people have said about volume. I just ate a salad that was ~200calories and that will last me a solid hour then I might have a 1/2cup of cottage cheese in a bit to get me some protein since it takes longer for your body to break it down. :) okay I'll end this now

    Thanks, I also have been drinking a lot of water to fill up. I eat about 2 heads of lettuce per week, I really need to make up a snack that involves lettuce/few cals, so I can have those between meals because I often also get headaches and lethargic. My blood sugar spikes up when I don't eat, and it goes down when I do eat- luckily I don't have diabetes, but this imbalance probably is a factor, and snacks probably would help.
  • Mary_Anastasia
    Mary_Anastasia Posts: 267 Member
    jprewitt1 wrote: »
    Mary_Anastasia wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Get your thyroid treated properly, for starters.

    This!! Plus stop spouting bad advise in other threads when you don't have a clue what you're doing.

    Thanks for your concern, muscles, but if you'd put your mind to more work when thoughtfully analyzing my posts, you'd realize that I avoid giving solid advice. I work in law-making, you learn to rarely say anything concretely.

    pk24.gif

    You work in "law-making" but avoid giving solid advice? I think you should find a different profession...

    And why do you say that? It's the nature of the beast sometimes. Finite items such as "shall" and "will" are rarely used in wide-sweeping legislature unless policy-making analysts and/or heavy-weight brass "recommend" it. Concrete verbiage can get you into trouble with the well-read. And apparently, laissez-faire and/or non-binding commentary can among the ill-read. :neutral:
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,423 Member
    Have you mentioned this to your doctor? Since it has been going on a very long time I think I would certainly seek a professional medical opinion.
    Other than that I would try adding more protein and fats to your diet. If you are eating enough calories for your activity level and getting plenty of fiber then I don't really think there is anything else you can fiddle with diet wise.
  • Mary_Anastasia
    Mary_Anastasia Posts: 267 Member
    Lounmoun wrote: »
    Have you mentioned this to your doctor? Since it has been going on a very long time I think I would certainly seek a professional medical opinion.
    Other than that I would try adding more protein and fats to your diet. If you are eating enough calories for your activity level and getting plenty of fiber then I don't really think there is anything else you can fiddle with diet wise.

    Yes, my nutritionist was baffled, and my last endocrinologist she said "your body just wants to be overweight, sometimes it's not our fault, your blueprint just insists on being overweight and eating a lot so you will always feel at a biological level that you need to be bigger and therefore be hungry" ......I fired that endo. My new endo suggested I see a GI specialist, he and my GP both point blank said I have so many backwards bio responses that they hesitate to test me for anything new without a wider network of specialists in their system.

    I am trying to add more fats to my diet for the first time- I'll see if that makes a difference. I have very very low cholesterol, so I'm hoping it primarily helps with that TBH.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited November 2016
    Mary_Anastasia wrote: »
    Concrete verbiage can get you into trouble with the well-read. And apparently, laissez-faire and/or non-binding commentary can among the ill-read. :neutral:

    What does this even mean?

    Most statutes lately don't seem to be that well-drafted, IMO. And "concrete verbiage" (at least if that means what I think it means, but it lacks, well, concreteness) would seem to be desirable, to avoid unnecessary ambiguity or a law being interpreted in an unintended way.

    What is laissez-faire language? I know about laissez-faire economics, obviously.

    Not sure what non-binding commentary (which would seem to refer to things like legislative history) has to do with anything, let alone an internet discussion. Also, it's rarely the "ill-read" who make a thing about it, but lawyers and judges.

    I'm a lawyer, so I am kind of interested in this topic.
  • Mary_Anastasia
    Mary_Anastasia Posts: 267 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Mary_Anastasia wrote: »
    Concrete verbiage can get you into trouble with the well-read. And apparently, laissez-faire and/or non-binding commentary can among the ill-read. :neutral:

    What does this even mean?

    Most statutes lately don't seem to be that well-drafted, IMO. And "concrete verbiage" (at least if that means what I think it means, but it lacks, well, concreteness) would seem to be desirable, to avoid unnecessary ambiguity or a law being interpreted in an unintended way.

    What is laissez-faire language? I know about laissez-faire economics, obviously.

    Not sure what non-binding commentary (which would seem to refer to things like legislative history) has to do with anything, let alone an internet discussion. Also, it's rarely the "ill-read" who make a thing about it, but lawyers and judges.

    I'm a lawyer, so I am kind of interested in this topic.

    It means if you speak concretely people who have nothing better to do and enjoy nit-picking will fuss over every word you say and interpret only common semantics; such as a term like "laissez-faire" which as a descriptor should be interpreted similarly to "que sera sera" but is too commonly only associated with particular etymology. Non-binding commentary, ie, "I shouldn't need to include a disclaimer on a subject forum that my commentary is neither a concrete statement nor binding in a court of law." is poking fun at those people who would otherwise ruffle their feathers while trying to ruffle mine over interpretation.

    "ill-read" obviously implies those who are not read into the customary usage of finite vice open-ended wording.

    As a lawyer, I'm sure you can appreciate the art of occasional ambiguity in law- not every situation can be nailed down in one concrete statement -> if they could we wouldn't have the ability to amend (or on occasion, interpret) the constitution.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited November 2016
    Mary_Anastasia wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Mary_Anastasia wrote: »
    Concrete verbiage can get you into trouble with the well-read. And apparently, laissez-faire and/or non-binding commentary can among the ill-read. :neutral:

    What does this even mean?

    Most statutes lately don't seem to be that well-drafted, IMO. And "concrete verbiage" (at least if that means what I think it means, but it lacks, well, concreteness) would seem to be desirable, to avoid unnecessary ambiguity or a law being interpreted in an unintended way.

    What is laissez-faire language? I know about laissez-faire economics, obviously.

    Not sure what non-binding commentary (which would seem to refer to things like legislative history) has to do with anything, let alone an internet discussion. Also, it's rarely the "ill-read" who make a thing about it, but lawyers and judges.

    I'm a lawyer, so I am kind of interested in this topic.

    It means if you speak concretely people who have nothing better to do and enjoy nit-picking will fuss over every word you say and interpret only common semantics

    No, it's the opposite. If you write with unambiguous language -- clearly, or indeed, concretely, people will not be able to successfully convince a court that what you wrote is different from what you intended to write. Now, there still could be applications that you did not anticipate and you want to avoid that, but again I'm not seeing how this is relevant to the question of advice given on a forum.

    A statute that does not clearly and concretely say what is required by the statute is a bad, terrible law (not that such laws don't exist, but using wishy-washy language is definitely considered a bug, not a feature, especially if you actually want the law to accomplish a particular objective).
    such as a term like "laissez-faire" which as a descriptor should be interpreted similarly to "que sera sera" but is too commonly only associated with particular etymology.

    Are you saying that I should have understood "laissez-faire" to mean "que sera sera" when you used it before? How on earth could anyone have known that is what you meant?

    I also don't get what "que sera sera" language is (I do enjoy The Man Who Knew Too Much more than Hayek, though), but if you are saying it's a bad idea, I think I can agree with that.
    Non-binding commentary, ie, "I shouldn't need to include a disclaimer on a subject forum that my commentary is neither a concrete statement nor binding in a court of law." is poking fun at those people who would otherwise ruffle their feathers while trying to ruffle mine over interpretation.

    Okay-doke, but you are the one who brought up legislative language, not anyone else. I certainly don't think what we write on the forum is similar to legislative language in any way. (For example, no one would reasonably draft or vote aye on a statute that includes "just my opinion" as a disclaimer).

    I'll drop it here, since I think we pretty much agree that what one writes on the forum has no connection with "law-making" language, right?
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    HighFiveSnowWhite.gif
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Que sera sera language = quote Doris Day.
    The really frightening thing about middle age is that you'll grow out of it.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Mary_Anastasia wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Get your thyroid treated properly, for starters.

    This!! Plus stop spouting bad advise in other threads when you don't have a clue what you're doing.

    Thanks for your concern, muscles, but if you'd put your mind to more work when thoughtfully analyzing my posts, you'd realize that I avoid giving solid advice. I work in law-making, you learn to rarely say anything concretely.

    I'd hope that in your job in law-making you don't talk about things you don't understand and have no facts about, laissez-faire or not.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Mary_Anastasia wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Get your thyroid treated properly, for starters.

    This!! Plus stop spouting bad advise in other threads when you don't have a clue what you're doing.

    Thanks for your concern, muscles, but if you'd put your mind to more work when thoughtfully analyzing my posts, you'd realize that I avoid giving solid advice. I work in law-making, you learn to rarely say anything concretely.

    I'd hope that in your job in law-making you don't talk about things you don't understand and have no facts about, laissez-faire or not.

    Not to mention the attempt to belittle through name calling.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Mary_Anastasia wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Get your thyroid treated properly, for starters.

    This!! Plus stop spouting bad advise in other threads when you don't have a clue what you're doing.

    Thanks for your concern, muscles, but if you'd put your mind to more work when thoughtfully analyzing my posts, you'd realize that I avoid giving solid advice. I work in law-making, you learn to rarely say anything concretely.

    I'd hope that in your job in law-making you don't talk about things you don't understand and have no facts about, laissez-faire or not.

    Not to mention the attempt to belittle through name calling.

    I know, right? How disgusting.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    Mary_Anastasia wrote: »
    trigden1991 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Get your thyroid treated properly, for starters.

    This!! Plus stop spouting bad advise in other threads when you don't have a clue what you're doing.

    Thanks for your concern, muscles, but if you'd put your mind to more work when thoughtfully analyzing my posts, you'd realize that I avoid giving solid advice. I work in law-making, you learn to rarely say anything concretely.

    Thanks for noticing my muscles.
  • astrocosmiczoom
    astrocosmiczoom Posts: 86 Member
    This is just two cents from me, but this happens to me when I eat stuff with dairy. Turns out I'm basically lactose intolerant. Maybe look into food allergies or intolerances.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories