What is the daftest weight related thing someone has ever said to you?
Replies
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
(Some stuff snipped by reply-er)
I haven't personally looked into the evidence on artifical sweeteners so I don't have a stance on it, but I would say that googling an issue and finding that people are saying bad stuff is completely irrelevant. You need to look at peer reviewed studies and make an effort to assess the quality of the study and also check whether what it claims to prove (or others claim it proves) is actually possible to prove with that study.
As an example, the decision that studies on lung cancer and cigarettes prove causation took a lot of time, analysis and careful study design. It was not based on a bit of correlation and a hunch.
Noooo! They're just boooorrring - all fulla big words and long sentences and no cool pictures or exclamation points. The only pictures are those chart thingies, and no kittens or bananas. I'm not gonna learn statistics, it's boring, too, and just makes you lie to people. It's almost like math, or something. And who wants to listen to a bunch of out-of-touch eggheads, anyway. They don't live in the real world. I just trust my gut, and the popular blogs. They wouldn't be popular if they weren't right, 'cos the people know what's right. Besides, I can understand what the blog people are saying, so they aren't trying to hide stuff from me.
(Where is the sarcasm font when I need it, anyway? And yes, this reply is on topic. Those are some of the daft things I've heard some people say about weight loss. Sure, I had to read between the lines a little, and be kinda mean. Li'l ol' ladies get to be mean. Old age gotta buy us something.
And no, I'm explicitly not (not! NOT!) saying any of the specific people earlier in this sub-thread think that way, which is why I snipped those quotes. I'm just riffing on the good info in the last post. ).18 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
(Some stuff snipped by reply-er)
I haven't personally looked into the evidence on artifical sweeteners so I don't have a stance on it, but I would say that googling an issue and finding that people are saying bad stuff is completely irrelevant. You need to look at peer reviewed studies and make an effort to assess the quality of the study and also check whether what it claims to prove (or others claim it proves) is actually possible to prove with that study.
As an example, the decision that studies on lung cancer and cigarettes prove causation took a lot of time, analysis and careful study design. It was not based on a bit of correlation and a hunch.
Noooo! They're just boooorrring - all fulla big words and long sentences and no cool pictures or exclamation points. The only pictures are those chart thingies, and no kittens or bananas. I'm not gonna learn statistics, it's boring, too, and just makes you lie to people. It's almost like math, or something. And who wants to listen to a bunch of out-of-touch eggheads, anyway. They don't live in the real world. I just trust my gut, and the popular blogs. They wouldn't be popular if they weren't right, 'cos the people know what's right. Besides, I can understand what the blog people are saying, so they aren't trying to hide stuff from me.
(Where is the sarcasm font when I need it, anyway? And yes, this reply is on topic. Those are some of the daft things I've heard some people say about weight loss. Sure, I had to read between the lines a little, and be kinda mean. Li'l ol' ladies get to be mean. Old age gotta buy us something.
And no, I'm explicitly not (not! NOT!) saying any of the specific people earlier in this sub-thread think that way, which is why I snipped those quotes. I'm just riffing on the good info in the last post. ).
If peer-reviewed studies could be, for lack of a better term, "dumbed-down" for people like me who don't understand what some of the sciencey terms mean, I'd be grateful. Or use memes like Chemistry Cat.3 -
A friend who I swear knows better (or at least I thought she did) posted recently "Any suggestions for shedding holiday weight other than cabbage soup?" I was too dumbfounded to respond.7
-
One myth that has not only gone unchallenged on this thread but been seconded by a number of people is that sugar is not addictive. Many studies have shown that affects the brain very similarly to cocaine; it stimulates the same pleasure center and long-term abuse of sugar depletes dopamine in the brain--the very same reason cocaine is addictive. A study last year demonstrated that a nicotine-addiction drug was successful in treating sugar addiction. Etc.0
-
Dianetheinvincible wrote: »One myth that has not only gone unchallenged on this thread but been seconded by a number of people is that sugar is not addictive. Many studies have shown that affects the brain very similarly to cocaine; it stimulates the same pleasure center and long-term abuse of sugar depletes dopamine in the brain--the very same reason cocaine is addictive. A study last year demonstrated that a nicotine-addiction drug was successful in treating sugar addiction. Etc.
Cuddling your pet activates the same pleasure areas in your brain. Sugar is not addictive. The reason we crave it is evolutionary, from when calories were scarce.
You may have sugar cravings, but it's not the same thing as addiction. http://www.livescience.com/40749-addiction-drugs-sugar.html21 -
I'm not gonna learn statistics, it's boring, too, and just makes you lie to people. It's almost like math, or something.
62.8% of statistics are made up on the spot, you know. Within a 0.02% tolerance, of course.
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »This thread enrages me because it's about 70% stupid myths, and about 20% people who think true things are stupid myths, and 10% people who pedantically refuse to understand the actual intention behind the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat".
I read a very long-winded comment on a blog somewhere (maybe even MFP's own blog) about this, where the comparison was demonstrated by the difference in volume between an equal weight of feathers and gold. The commenter was going about how gold is weighed in Troy ounces so the comparison wasn't valid.
But I have to admit that the above phrase does irritate me (yes, I'm a pedant, so what? ), because it's not the weight that should be compared. At least the gold/feathers thing was talking about the volume/appearance of the same weight of each. 
3 -
Dianetheinvincible wrote: »One myth that has not only gone unchallenged on this thread but been seconded by a number of people is that sugar is not addictive. Many studies have shown that affects the brain very similarly to cocaine; it stimulates the same pleasure center and long-term abuse of sugar depletes dopamine in the brain--the very same reason cocaine is addictive. A study last year demonstrated that a nicotine-addiction drug was successful in treating sugar addiction. Etc.
Cuddling your pet activates the same pleasure areas in your brain. Sugar is not addictive. The reason we crave it is evolutionary, from when calories were scarce.
This. Just because a stimulus activates the same pleasure center in the brain doesn't make that stimulus physically addictive. As I was rhetorically pointing out in one of my earlier responses upthread, one's inability to control their sugar intake never reaches the stage that real addicts deal with, be they heroin users, cocaine users, alcoholics, etc. I also believe that equating sugar to hard drug addiction is an insult to actual addicts and their families, because it minimizes the struggle and loss that those people go through on a daily basis.
I challenge anyone who claims sugar is as addictive as actual drugs to point me towards a case study showing "sugar addicts" throwing their lives away to get their sugar fix. And as stated by someone else upthread, the side effects of heroin withdrawal can actually be fatal. Sugar withdrawal, on the other hand? I think not.
ETA: I watched a friend overcome a heroin addiction. In the year it took her to get clean, she dealt with seizures, vomiting, panic attacks, and severe clinical depression. Another friend who was addicted to meth tried for years to kick his habit and ended up dying. I've also seen many people in my life try to kick their sugar habit. And I can assure you it's not even close.29 -
Drink a diet soda when you eat a candy bar. It cancels out the candy bars calories.13
-
I think that it's not sugar that is "addictive" but overeating. If it were really sugar pizza wouldn't do the trick. Even the group is called overeaters anonymous. Those who have this issue are still using a substance/behaviour to fill a whole/need or to forget something. They are compelled to do something that is harmful to them and can't stop.
I don't think it should be considered insulting to people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol...look at the people on My 600 pound Life who are handed a death sentence but still continue...maybe technically it's more like a gambling or sex addiction but if it's ruining your lifeand you can't stop, is the argument really worth having?3 -
Dianetheinvincible wrote: »One myth that has not only gone unchallenged on this thread but been seconded by a number of people is that sugar is not addictive. Many studies have shown that affects the brain very similarly to cocaine; it stimulates the same pleasure center and long-term abuse of sugar depletes dopamine in the brain--the very same reason cocaine is addictive. A study last year demonstrated that a nicotine-addiction drug was successful in treating sugar addiction. Etc.
Everything that is pleasurable activates the "pleasure center" of the brain. That is not an indication of addiction. Also, affecting the same area of the brain as cocaine does not mean that it affects that area "similarly" to cocaine.
Sugar activates the brain. Cocaine straight up hijacks the brain and creates a chemical dependency.
They are not even close and I challenge you to produce one single peer reviewed study which legitimately indicates that sugar is addictive in humans. None exist.
Strong first post.19 -
I think that it's not sugar that is "addictive" but overeating. If it were really sugar pizza wouldn't do the trick. Even the group is called overeaters anonymous. Those who have this issue are still using a substance/behaviour to fill a whole/need or to forget something. They are compelled to do something that is harmful to them and can't stop.
I don't think it should be considered insulting to people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol...look at the people on My 600 pound Life who are handed a death sentence but still continue...maybe technically it's more like a gambling or sex addiction but if it's ruining your lifeand you can't stop, is the argument really worth having?
To your first point, habitual behavior is different than physical addiction/chemical dependency.
Your second point is a good one, although I still believe it's insulting because the people in my life (either IRL or on social media) who claim they're addicted to sugar are nowhere near the "My 600 Pound Life" stage. In rarified cases that you see on that show sure, their lives are ruined. But for everyone else, playing the "addict" card is just an excuse and that's what I find insulting.
And while I've never been a drug addict, I've witnessed it first hand which obviously colors my view on the subject. I'll happily concede that point. 6 -
CafeRacer808 wrote: »I think that it's not sugar that is "addictive" but overeating. If it were really sugar pizza wouldn't do the trick. Even the group is called overeaters anonymous. Those who have this issue are still using a substance/behaviour to fill a whole/need or to forget something. They are compelled to do something that is harmful to them and can't stop.
I don't think it should be considered insulting to people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol...look at the people on My 600 pound Life who are handed a death sentence but still continue...maybe technically it's more like a gambling or sex addiction but if it's ruining your lifeand you can't stop, is the argument really worth having?
To your first point, habitual behavior is different than physical addiction/chemical dependency.
Your second point is a good one, although I still believe it's insulting because the people in my life (either IRL or on social media) who claim they're addicted to sugar are nowhere near the "My 600 Pound Life" stage. In rarified cases that you see on that show sure, their lives are ruined. But for everyone else, playing the "addict" card is just an excuse and that's what I find insulting.
And while I've never been a drug addict, I've witnessed it first hand which obviously colors my view on the subject. I'll happily concede that point.
But...and I'm not saying this is a fact but rather just the way I look at it. Are not all addicts addicted in varying degrees?
The fact that I only smoked 10 cigarettes a day and not 3 packs didn't mean I wasn't addicted to them. I was able to quit quickly and relatively easily because of a change in mindset...that doesn't mean that at one point I wouldn't have swam across an ocean for just one cigarette.
I see the 600 pound people as the people who smoked 3 packs a day. People who are "only" 100 pounds overweight, staring at joint replacements and diabetes and still unable to compel themselves to stop (I think) have something akin to my 10 cigarette a day problem.
Just my humble opinion.
4 -
And this thread was going so well... leave it to Big Anti sugar to ruin everything nice
20 -
But...and I'm not saying this is a fact but rather just the way I look at it. Are not all addicts addicted in varying degrees?
The fact that I only smoked 10 cigarettes a day and not 3 packs didn't mean I wasn't addicted to them. I was able to quit quickly and relatively easily because of a change in mindset...that doesn't mean that at one point I wouldn't have swam across an ocean for just one cigarette.
I see the 600 pound people as the people who smoked 3 packs a day. People who are "only" 100 pounds overweight, staring at joint replacements and diabetes and still unable to compel themselves to stop (I think) have something akin to my 10 cigarette a day problem.
Just my humble opinion.
Well of course the degree to which someone is addicted varies from person to person and is based on the substance one is addicted to, their usage, etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that overcoming a chemical dependency is a very different animal than trying to overcome either habitual behaviors or a lack of self control.
And as stated by someone else above, there's no clinical research that shows sugar addiction is a real phenomenon. But people still bring up sugar addiction all the time, and this is why it's an argument worth having, IMO.9 -
CafeRacer808 wrote: »But...and I'm not saying this is a fact but rather just the way I look at it. Are not all addicts addicted in varying degrees?
The fact that I only smoked 10 cigarettes a day and not 3 packs didn't mean I wasn't addicted to them. I was able to quit quickly and relatively easily because of a change in mindset...that doesn't mean that at one point I wouldn't have swam across an ocean for just one cigarette.
I see the 600 pound people as the people who smoked 3 packs a day. People who are "only" 100 pounds overweight, staring at joint replacements and diabetes and still unable to compel themselves to stop (I think) have something akin to my 10 cigarette a day problem.
Just my humble opinion.
Well of course the degree to which someone is addicted varies from person to person and is based on the substance one is addicted to, their usage, etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that overcoming a chemical dependency is a very different animal than trying to overcome either habitual behaviors or a lack of self control.
And as stated by someone else above, there's no clinical research that shows sugar addiction is a real phenomenon. But people still bring up sugar addiction all the time, and this is why it's an argument worth having, IMO.
Is definatly worth having. At most id give sugar addiction over as more of a mental thing vs a true physical addiction. You want it, Your body doesn't shut down and cause extreme withdrawl symptoms like a drug, But it can definatly *kitten* with your mind. Gotta fix the mindset, Not blame the "addiction"
8 -
I was told by a 19 year old fitness trainer at a gym that eating clean was ridiculous because there is no way anyone can stick to that lifestyle. So I would do better to download their fitness app and log in my calories because I can eat whatever I want, as long as I stay under my calorie goal. ...I had been eating clean for 3 months and had lost about 30 pounds. I told him that it was actually easy eating clean now that addictive sugars were out of my system. He looked at me like that was the most absurd thing he had ever heard in his short life. He then grabbed a flip-yogurt from his fridge, read the nutritional facts off while adding them to his calorie app. He raved about how it was a decent snack and only had 190 calories in it. I pointed out it had 24g of Carbs and I stay under 15g a day. I pointed out it also had 17g of sugars which will burn up quickly in his system and make him feel ravenous later. He then said what I am doing for weight loss will absolutely not work for me long term. I stood up, shook his hand and said, "I think we are done here." He told me to feel free to come back to him when my plan fails. Four months later with some minor macro adjustments, my plan is still going strong.
I tend to agree with your trainer. I've lost 70 pounds and I'm in maintenance now. I don't eat clean, I just stick to my calorie goal and eat whatever I want. I eat flip yogurts everyday. In fact, I usually eat 2 or 3 per day. I don't track sugar or carbs though. I'm not saying what you are doing won't work for you, but it would never work for me.18 -
CafeRacer808 wrote: »I think that it's not sugar that is "addictive" but overeating. If it were really sugar pizza wouldn't do the trick. Even the group is called overeaters anonymous. Those who have this issue are still using a substance/behaviour to fill a whole/need or to forget something. They are compelled to do something that is harmful to them and can't stop.
I don't think it should be considered insulting to people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol...look at the people on My 600 pound Life who are handed a death sentence but still continue...maybe technically it's more like a gambling or sex addiction but if it's ruining your lifeand you can't stop, is the argument really worth having?
To your first point, habitual behavior is different than physical addiction/chemical dependency.
Your second point is a good one, although I still believe it's insulting because the people in my life (either IRL or on social media) who claim they're addicted to sugar are nowhere near the "My 600 Pound Life" stage. In rarified cases that you see on that show sure, their lives are ruined. But for everyone else, playing the "addict" card is just an excuse and that's what I find insulting.
And while I've never been a drug addict, I've witnessed it first hand which obviously colors my view on the subject. I'll happily concede that point.
But...and I'm not saying this is a fact but rather just the way I look at it. Are not all addicts addicted in varying degrees?
The fact that I only smoked 10 cigarettes a day and not 3 packs didn't mean I wasn't addicted to them. I was able to quit quickly and relatively easily because of a change in mindset...that doesn't mean that at one point I wouldn't have swam across an ocean for just one cigarette.
I see the 600 pound people as the people who smoked 3 packs a day. People who are "only" 100 pounds overweight, staring at joint replacements and diabetes and still unable to compel themselves to stop (I think) have something akin to my 10 cigarette a day problem.
Just my humble opinion.
This was all addressed in a thread that's in the debate section called Food Addiction: A Different Perspective.
The science actually does point to there being such a thing as a behavioral addiction to eating in a small subset of people. That would explain the 600 Pound Life people.
What the science doesn't support is addiction to any food as a substance.
The studies that show rats responding to sugar that are so often touted on here? The funny thing is that what a lot of people who talk about those don't talk about the fact that the rats also respond in the same way to fat and a cafeteria diet.12 -
Diet soda is full of salt so makes you retain water, that's why you're not losing weight.
Anything related to nutrition and health said by the "health coach" Arbonne pusher on my FB, including how much better and higher quality their protein shakes and "fizz sticks" are. I keep her for the LOLs.7 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
(Some stuff snipped by reply-er)
I haven't personally looked into the evidence on artifical sweeteners so I don't have a stance on it, but I would say that googling an issue and finding that people are saying bad stuff is completely irrelevant. You need to look at peer reviewed studies and make an effort to assess the quality of the study and also check whether what it claims to prove (or others claim it proves) is actually possible to prove with that study.
As an example, the decision that studies on lung cancer and cigarettes prove causation took a lot of time, analysis and careful study design. It was not based on a bit of correlation and a hunch.
Noooo! They're just boooorrring - all fulla big words and long sentences and no cool pictures or exclamation points. The only pictures are those chart thingies, and no kittens or bananas. I'm not gonna learn statistics, it's boring, too, and just makes you lie to people. It's almost like math, or something. And who wants to listen to a bunch of out-of-touch eggheads, anyway. They don't live in the real world. I just trust my gut, and the popular blogs. They wouldn't be popular if they weren't right, 'cos the people know what's right. Besides, I can understand what the blog people are saying, so they aren't trying to hide stuff from me.
(Where is the sarcasm font when I need it, anyway? And yes, this reply is on topic. Those are some of the daft things I've heard some people say about weight loss. Sure, I had to read between the lines a little, and be kinda mean. Li'l ol' ladies get to be mean. Old age gotta buy us something.
And no, I'm explicitly not (not! NOT!) saying any of the specific people earlier in this sub-thread think that way, which is why I snipped those quotes. I'm just riffing on the good info in the last post. ).
If peer-reviewed studies could be, for lack of a better term, "dumbed-down" for people like me who don't understand what some of the sciencey terms mean, I'd be grateful. Or use memes like Chemistry Cat.
I should start a blog that just takes peer reviewed studies and makes them easy to understand. I already do that for my boyfriend lol.11 -
Yeah, what the hell is with the "diet soda is a sodium bomb" stuff that keeps popping up lately??6
-
I don't know. I just think if you are compelled to do something you hate and wish you could stop but can't, then it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Anyhoo...the daftest thing anyone ever saidd to me was that I was gaining weight despite working out because I was putting on muscle (during my very easy weekly sessions with a personal trainer) I swear to god she didn't even ask me what I was eating.1 -
I don't know. I just think if you are compelled to do something you hate and wish you could stop but can't, then it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Anyhoo...the daftest thing anyone ever saidd to me was that I was gaining weight despite working out because I was putting on muscle (during my very easy weekly sessions with a personal trainer) I swear to god ahe didn't even ask me what I was eating.
There's a difference between addictions that are behavior based and addictions that are substance based (like gambling or sex).
It doesn't mean that it's not an addiction in the case of the 600 Pound Life people, it's just that it's not a substance addiction.
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't know. I just think if you are compelled to do something you hate and wish you could stop but can't, then it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Anyhoo...the daftest thing anyone ever saidd to me was that I was gaining weight despite working out because I was putting on muscle (during my very easy weekly sessions with a personal trainer) I swear to god ahe didn't even ask me what I was eating.
There's a difference between addictions that are behavior based and addictions that are substance based (like gambling or sex).
It doesn't mean that it's not an addiction in the case of the 600 Pound Life People, it's just that it's not a substance addiction.
I said it was a behavioural addiction. 0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't know. I just think if you are compelled to do something you hate and wish you could stop but can't, then it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Anyhoo...the daftest thing anyone ever saidd to me was that I was gaining weight despite working out because I was putting on muscle (during my very easy weekly sessions with a personal trainer) I swear to god ahe didn't even ask me what I was eating.
There's a difference between addictions that are behavior based and addictions that are substance based (like gambling or sex).
It doesn't mean that it's not an addiction in the case of the 600 Pound Life People, it's just that it's not a substance addiction.
I said it was a behavioural addiction.
Then I'm not sure why you said "I don't know" after I posted about it being a behavioral addiction.
I guess our wires just got crossed.0 -
I'm not gonna learn statistics, it's boring, too, and just makes you lie to people. It's almost like math, or something.
62.8% of statistics are made up on the spot, you know. Within a 0.02% tolerance, of course.TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »This thread enrages me because it's about 70% stupid myths, and about 20% people who think true things are stupid myths, and 10% people who pedantically refuse to understand the actual intention behind the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat".
I read a very long-winded comment on a blog somewhere (maybe even MFP's own blog) about this, where the comparison was demonstrated by the difference in volume between an equal weight of feathers and gold. The commenter was going about how gold is weighed in Troy ounces so the comparison wasn't valid.
But I have to admit that the above phrase does irritate me (yes, I'm a pedant, so what? ), because it's not the weight that should be compared. At least the gold/feathers thing was talking about the volume/appearance of the same weight of each.
As someone with a master's degree in sociology and a bachelor's degree in economics I disagree it's 63.2% of statistics are made on the spot and that as a society we accept that. Lol8 -
CafeRacer808 wrote: »But...and I'm not saying this is a fact but rather just the way I look at it. Are not all addicts addicted in varying degrees?
The fact that I only smoked 10 cigarettes a day and not 3 packs didn't mean I wasn't addicted to them. I was able to quit quickly and relatively easily because of a change in mindset...that doesn't mean that at one point I wouldn't have swam across an ocean for just one cigarette.
I see the 600 pound people as the people who smoked 3 packs a day. People who are "only" 100 pounds overweight, staring at joint replacements and diabetes and still unable to compel themselves to stop (I think) have something akin to my 10 cigarette a day problem.
Just my humble opinion.
Well of course the degree to which someone is addicted varies from person to person and is based on the substance one is addicted to, their usage, etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that overcoming a chemical dependency is a very different animal than trying to overcome either habitual behaviors or a lack of self control.
And as stated by someone else above, there's no clinical research that shows sugar addiction is a real phenomenon. But people still bring up sugar addiction all the time, and this is why it's an argument worth having, IMO.
And to be fair, let's throw in the fact that nobody knocks over a liquor store for sugar because sugar is legal.
BUT still.
Isn't there some kind of Internet law that you automatically lose the argument if you compare something horrific with something trivial? Or does that only apply to Hitler?9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't know. I just think if you are compelled to do something you hate and wish you could stop but can't, then it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Anyhoo...the daftest thing anyone ever saidd to me was that I was gaining weight despite working out because I was putting on muscle (during my very easy weekly sessions with a personal trainer) I swear to god ahe didn't even ask me what I was eating.
There's a difference between addictions that are behavior based and addictions that are substance based (like gambling or sex).
It doesn't mean that it's not an addiction in the case of the 600 Pound Life People, it's just that it's not a substance addiction.
I said it was a behavioural addiction.
Then I'm not sure why you said "I don't know" after I posted about it being a behavioral addiction.
I guess our wires just got crossed.
I didn't see yours. Sorry for the confusion.0 -
I was told by a 19 year old fitness trainer at a gym that eating clean was ridiculous because there is no way anyone can stick to that lifestyle. So I would do better to download their fitness app and log in my calories because I can eat whatever I want, as long as I stay under my calorie goal. ...I had been eating clean for 3 months and had lost about 30 pounds. I told him that it was actually easy eating clean now that addictive sugars were out of my system. He looked at me like that was the most absurd thing he had ever heard in his short life. He then grabbed a flip-yogurt from his fridge, read the nutritional facts off while adding them to his calorie app. He raved about how it was a decent snack and only had 190 calories in it. I pointed out it had 24g of Carbs and I stay under 15g a day. I pointed out it also had 17g of sugars which will burn up quickly in his system and make him feel ravenous later. He then said what I am doing for weight loss will absolutely not work for me long term. I stood up, shook his hand and said, "I think we are done here." He told me to feel free to come back to him when my plan fails. Four months later with some minor macro adjustments, my plan is still going strong.
But he's right. You can eat whatever you want as long as you stay under calories.
He probably looked at you "like that was the most absurd thing he had ever heard" because it WAS.18 -
Anyhoo...the daftest thing anyone ever saidd to me was that I was gaining weight despite working out because I was putting on muscle (during my very easy weekly sessions with a personal trainer) I swear to god she didn't even ask me what I was eating.
That piggybacks onto what a former trainer of mine said - she couldn't understand why I hadn't gained any muscle after 8 weeks of weight lifting. I had lost 8 pounds and according to the hand-held BIA device she insisted on using (learn to use calipers, you bugger!) 7 pounds were fat and 1 was water? muscle? I don't know.
I was in Weight Watchers and lowering my calorie intake so I wasn't eating enough to build muscle. And she already knew I was on WW.
3 -
I was told by a 19 year old fitness trainer at a gym that eating clean was ridiculous because there is no way anyone can stick to that lifestyle. So I would do better to download their fitness app and log in my calories because I can eat whatever I want, as long as I stay under my calorie goal. ...I had been eating clean for 3 months and had lost about 30 pounds. I told him that it was actually easy eating clean now that addictive sugars were out of my system. He looked at me like that was the most absurd thing he had ever heard in his short life. He then grabbed a flip-yogurt from his fridge, read the nutritional facts off while adding them to his calorie app. He raved about how it was a decent snack and only had 190 calories in it. I pointed out it had 24g of Carbs and I stay under 15g a day. I pointed out it also had 17g of sugars which will burn up quickly in his system and make him feel ravenous later. He then said what I am doing for weight loss will absolutely not work for me long term. I stood up, shook his hand and said, "I think we are done here." He told me to feel free to come back to him when my plan fails. Four months later with some minor macro adjustments, my plan is still going strong.
While I don't agree with him calling your way of eating "ridiculous," he was absolutely correct in saying you can eat whatever you want and still lose weight.
But just out of curiosity, what are you eating while staying under 15 grams of carbs? That's really low.10
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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