Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Options
Replies
-
coderdan82 wrote: »Because fruit doesn't leave people in general hungry relatively soon after eating it. I find fruit quite filling.
If it works for you, that's great -- that's my whole point about how each person is the expert on what works for them. Telling others they should avoid fruit is a whole different matter.
Ok, people keep zeroring in on the fruit thing. Let's read my post again:coderdan82 wrote: »I had people jump down my throat once when I suggested eating less fruit because it's very high in sugar and leaves you hungry relatively soon after eating it.
I suggested it because that's what works for me so it might work for them. Where, in my post, does I say it works for everyone? Maybe my wording is a bit off, should've said "I find it leaves me hungry" rather than "leaves you hungry".
Right here: "it's very high in sugar and leaves you hungry relatively soon after eating it."
There's a big difference between saying that and saying to someone who had said they were relying on fruit for breakfast or snacks that they might want to consider trying something with more mixed macros, since for YOU fruit tends to result in you getting hungry soon after, possibly because that's how you react to foods with high sugar, even nutrient-dense ones.
I say stuff like that all the time (although not about fruit since I find it filling) and don't get woo'd. I often say that FOR ME snacking doesn't work and can result in never feeling satisfied and not working, so people might want to experiment with eating patterns and see what works for them, for example.This is exactly my point though. I used low-carb as an example because this is what I'm doing so it's where I notice the backlash but if you need something - anything - more than just calorie counting to help you stay in that calorie deficit then what's wrong with that? If it's not working then, yeah, get the heck off that diet, otherwise stick with what works.
Absolutely no one says there is anything wrong with picking strategies that help with satiety.
People object to once-size-fits-all advice, evangelizing your (anyone's) preferred way of eating, or making broad assertions that are not true for everyone (like fruit is not filling or that fat is or that IF is better than other ways of eating).
Personally, I don't assume people ARE struggling with satiety unless they say so (I never did, maybe I intuitively knew what was satiating to me, maybe I naturally adjusted -- I have other issues with staying in a deficit at time, but it's not hunger). If they do, I try to suggest a variety of possibilities and help them work out what will work based on themselves and maybe experimentation. If someone is asking for general advice I say to consider satiety and nutrition. And I think most others who regularly give advice do as well -- the claim that people say to think about nothing but calories is simply untrue.10 -
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.46
-
jamesakrobinson wrote: »A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.23 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?20 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »"You can't get bulky by accident"
Which is just straight up not true. I understand the sentiment, it's saying that you are not going to suddenly become muscular without doing anything that would allow this to happen.
But I have several cases of anecdotal evidence from people who do not lift where they have unintentionally become more bulky than they'd like/realised. This is when you're doing an exercise that builds muscles, but you don't realise it.
Like my friend did when she took up rowing. Or like me when for years, literal years, I thought I just had fat arms. The reason I cannot wear long sleeved blouses or find blazers that fit was because of my fat arms. Until another (female) judo player mentioned, in passing, how they hated how they couldn't wear long sleeves as clothing companies don't think that women should have muscles and how judo players have muscular arms. And yeah, suddenly it made sense, when I tense my muscles I can see that there's a lot there, and that, yeah, I have got bulky by accident. For reference: I don't lift, I don't go to the gym, I don't do weight exercises. I judo twice a week and that's all the strength related training I do. And this has been the case for years. So no, it is certainly possible to become bulky by accident.
Must be genetics. I did judo for years, and never got "bulky". Two+ years hardcore in the gym, though? Yep, SUPAH BULKY!!!
Or maybe it's how you vs they think of "bulky"?
I don't know. She's talking about arms not fitting in sleeves. Did not have that problem doing judo. I do have that problem now. That's what I was referring to.quiksylver296 wrote: »"You can't get bulky by accident"
Which is just straight up not true. I understand the sentiment, it's saying that you are not going to suddenly become muscular without doing anything that would allow this to happen.
But I have several cases of anecdotal evidence from people who do not lift where they have unintentionally become more bulky than they'd like/realised. This is when you're doing an exercise that builds muscles, but you don't realise it.
Like my friend did when she took up rowing. Or like me when for years, literal years, I thought I just had fat arms. The reason I cannot wear long sleeved blouses or find blazers that fit was because of my fat arms. Until another (female) judo player mentioned, in passing, how they hated how they couldn't wear long sleeves as clothing companies don't think that women should have muscles and how judo players have muscular arms. And yeah, suddenly it made sense, when I tense my muscles I can see that there's a lot there, and that, yeah, I have got bulky by accident. For reference: I don't lift, I don't go to the gym, I don't do weight exercises. I judo twice a week and that's all the strength related training I do. And this has been the case for years. So no, it is certainly possible to become bulky by accident.
Must be genetics. I did judo for years, and never got "bulky". Two+ years hardcore in the gym, though? Yep, SUPAH BULKY!!!
Could well be, maybe I'm the opposite of a hard gainer. I would mention that I normally train with men who often have 10kg+ on me, so I am used to moving around heavy weights Although this is over the course of year and years, so I supposed that my time yoyo dieting probably contributed with unintentional bulk/cut cycles. Maybe I should start lifting and become extra bulky!
(and by bulky, yes I mean more than just gently muscular, I mean "even though I'm wearing a top 2 sizes larger than me, I cannot pull this on over my arms" bulky)8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Your response is exactly what my original disagreement was. The USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines say people should limit added sugar not "people except those that track on MFP and think they are doing okay should limit added sugar".
You mention watching macros, the carbs number on MFP doesn't tell one if their carb intake is made up of nutrient dense carbs or soda
That's not what I was saying. The guidelines were put out there as a good way of reducing calories/weight. My point is that it's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
If person A focuses on avoiding added sugar and ignores calories, they will probably end up reducing their calorie intake without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
If person B focuses on reducing calorie consumption and ignores sugar, they will probably end up with a healthy level of added sugar without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
Maybe I give people too much credit, but if person B is drinking a good amount of soda and limiting their calories overall, they will end up hungry and either figure it out for themselves or come here asking about it. We see posts all the time from people who drink too much soda and are looking for tips on how to stop. And we give them tips - diet soda, black coffee, carry a water bottle, ween yourself down, etc. They want to stop due to the calories, but the net effect will be less sugar.
And I can imagine it's possible to eat a low added sugar diet and still not eat a nutritionally complete diet, I'm thinking of keto/low carb dieters who happen to eat a lot of convenience "low carb" foods rather than whole foods. Sugar level is not inherently proportional to nutrition density.
There is no confirmed "health" benefit to reducing added sugar (according to these major health organizations) beyond controlling calorie intake/weight. So if you are already controlling your calorie intake and weight, there is nothing in these guidelines (at least as far as I'm seeing) to suggest focusing on added sugar is necessary.
ETA: To be clear, I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone here is really saying) that a diet loaded with added sugar is healthy. We're saying that any attempt to get your calories in line will naturally over time lead to a healthy level of added sugar.
Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
20 -
Personally, and I don't think I'm unusual, I don't dismiss the recommendations of the WHO, etc., at all. I simply say that there are more sensible ways of getting to the same place than hyperfocusing on added sugar (which too many newbies misunderstand as sugar -- see, e.g., the fears about fruit and sugar in dairy, and how just upthread one poster translated a study on added sugar to "sugar").
As I've said over and over, if you are on a limited calorie goal and hit it, hit a sensible protein goal, and make an efforts to have a balanced diet based around nutrient dense foods including lots of vegetables, ideally some fruit, and other sources of fiber, healthy fats, etc., and if you understand (as is just common sense) and that calories from lower nutrient foods (and we all know what they are) should be limited and not the base of the diet, then it's very unlikely you will be consuming excess sugar.
I also suggested looking at sugar for a while and seeing if you were getting more than expected and, if so, if it was from whole food sources (i.e., NOT added sugar), or if you seemed to be getting in more than expected from other sources (which is worth knowing, although I think virtually no one is actually going to be surprised that the foods that have lots of added sugar have lots of added sugar).
This idea that people are eating terrible diets very high in sugar and don't know it and don't know it's not ideal when they are already focusing on calories and limiting them is just a strawman. Do some people decide that for various reasons they are going to do it anyway, or aren't yet ready to put in the work to change it, or that it is more important to focus on other things first? Yes, absolutely. But that's not because they don't know what a good diet looks like or think these nutrition goals are consistent with having huge amounts of added sugar.
Now, all bets are off IF one has lots of calories (very active, larger guy, on a bulk, or some combination). To what extent more added sugar (and whether the source matters) are problems in that context might be worth discussing (I think we don't really know). But that's not actually the context in which these questions are normally raised.
The question in which they are raised are: (1) should I worry about putting milk in my coffee/that fruit makes me go over my goal; and (2) can I lose weight if I eat some sweets? (and the answer to this ALWAYS includes many comments about satiety and moderation and overall good diet).12 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Your response is exactly what my original disagreement was. The USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines say people should limit added sugar not "people except those that track on MFP and think they are doing okay should limit added sugar".
You mention watching macros, the carbs number on MFP doesn't tell one if their carb intake is made up of nutrient dense carbs or soda
That's not what I was saying. The guidelines were put out there as a good way of reducing calories/weight. My point is that it's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
If person A focuses on avoiding added sugar and ignores calories, they will probably end up reducing their calorie intake without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
If person B focuses on reducing calorie consumption and ignores sugar, they will probably end up with a healthy level of added sugar without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
Maybe I give people too much credit, but if person B is drinking a good amount of soda and limiting their calories overall, they will end up hungry and either figure it out for themselves or come here asking about it. We see posts all the time from people who drink too much soda and are looking for tips on how to stop. And we give them tips - diet soda, black coffee, carry a water bottle, ween yourself down, etc. They want to stop due to the calories, but the net effect will be less sugar.
And I can imagine it's possible to eat a low added sugar diet and still not eat a nutritionally complete diet, I'm thinking of keto/low carb dieters who happen to eat a lot of convenience "low carb" foods rather than whole foods. Sugar level is not inherently proportional to nutrition density.
There is no confirmed "health" benefit to reducing added sugar (according to these major health organizations) beyond controlling calorie intake/weight. So if you are already controlling your calorie intake and weight, there is nothing in these guidelines (at least as far as I'm seeing) to suggest focusing on added sugar is necessary.
ETA: To be clear, I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone here is really saying) that a diet loaded with added sugar is healthy. We're saying that any attempt to get your calories in line will naturally over time lead to a healthy level of added sugar.
Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
I don't see the regulars "pooh-poohing" added sugar. They ask if being over your sugar goal is because of fruit or dairy. I go over frequently because of fruit. As for the muscular guy eating junk food-have you read his thread? He has regular check-ups and blood work done. All A-OK.11 -
_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?
Physics would say you are wrong...you can’t break laws of physics...now could it be fat eating higher fat gives you more energy and so you start moving more increases your calorie out while your CI remains to same? Possibly
It’s why sometimes when ppl go from extremely restrictive diet to more caloric intake they unknowingly increase incidental movement which increases calories out - it’s not that eating more burns more but how your body uses said energy10 -
One thing I will say... seems a lot of what we see as commonly given advice is subject to how we read/interpret things. Specifically, topics we are sensitive to. Some of the things people are pointing out as "commonly given advice" I don't think I've ever seen, and certainly wouldn't call it common. I think that really speaks to personal biases... something we should all be aware of on a discussion board.13
-
_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?
I'm wondering if this is a time where what you think/observe to be happening isn't what's actually happening?13 -
_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?
With lower carbs you are losing more water which can account for more total weight loss.13 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Your response is exactly what my original disagreement was. The USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines say people should limit added sugar not "people except those that track on MFP and think they are doing okay should limit added sugar".
You mention watching macros, the carbs number on MFP doesn't tell one if their carb intake is made up of nutrient dense carbs or soda
That's not what I was saying. The guidelines were put out there as a good way of reducing calories/weight. My point is that it's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
If person A focuses on avoiding added sugar and ignores calories, they will probably end up reducing their calorie intake without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
If person B focuses on reducing calorie consumption and ignores sugar, they will probably end up with a healthy level of added sugar without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
Maybe I give people too much credit, but if person B is drinking a good amount of soda and limiting their calories overall, they will end up hungry and either figure it out for themselves or come here asking about it. We see posts all the time from people who drink too much soda and are looking for tips on how to stop. And we give them tips - diet soda, black coffee, carry a water bottle, ween yourself down, etc. They want to stop due to the calories, but the net effect will be less sugar.
And I can imagine it's possible to eat a low added sugar diet and still not eat a nutritionally complete diet, I'm thinking of keto/low carb dieters who happen to eat a lot of convenience "low carb" foods rather than whole foods. Sugar level is not inherently proportional to nutrition density.
There is no confirmed "health" benefit to reducing added sugar (according to these major health organizations) beyond controlling calorie intake/weight. So if you are already controlling your calorie intake and weight, there is nothing in these guidelines (at least as far as I'm seeing) to suggest focusing on added sugar is necessary.
ETA: To be clear, I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone here is really saying) that a diet loaded with added sugar is healthy. We're saying that any attempt to get your calories in line will naturally over time lead to a healthy level of added sugar.
Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
And I think that's where the disconnect is. We aren't pooh-poohing the guidelines. We are reading the reasoning those organizations state are behind the guidelines and using some critical thinking to realize that since we are already paying attention to other numbers, added sugars will naturally fall in line. So there is no reason to freak out over eating a piece of birthday cake if it fits in your calories. I feel like you are willfully ignoring the multiple times it's been stated that we AREN'T saying lots of added sugar isn't a problem. It's just not necessary to tell folks here to worry about it, because it will take care of itself.
And I haven't read through Still Skeptical in awhile, but I'm reasonably sure OP was clear this was an extreme experiment, that he's not saying nutrition isn't important for health, and that he doesn't eat that way all the time.10 -
coderdan82 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Does it seem remotely realistic to you that someone would be here logging their calories and decide to consume their entire goal in soda pop in the space of one hour?
My example was extreme on purpose to call out the fact that there are strategies to be worked out and some of the approaches people take get ridiculed even though they work for some people.janejellyroll wrote: »Also, it may be true that fruit leaves *you* hungry after eating it, but that's not a universal thing. There are people who find fruit to be a great snack, which is why it can be so unhelpful to make generalizations about how different foods/macro goals impact people.deannalfisher wrote: »re: the less fruit - that might be true for you - but for me, a banana can leave me satiated for several hours compared to other options
It was a suggestion, not a generalization.
I don't see the point of using such an extreme example.
If it isn't a generalization, you may want to consider rephrasing it. When you say fruit leaves "you" hungry after eating it, it comes across like you're telling other people what will happen to them.7 -
_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?
I'm wondering if this is a time where what you think/observe to be happening isn't what's actually happening?
Yeah, this^^
It is easier for many people to lose with LC. It's easier for me. It's easier because I have to eliminate a lot of my triggery foods in order to stay Low(er) Carb, and in so doing I have to increase fat and protein. That keeps my blood sugar more stable so I don't feel that fake hunger, I don't have any off-plan over-eating and I feel satiated on LC. Problem with LC is that for me it isn't sustainable long-term. I'm not willing to give up cookies forever. I am going to want a baguette or some oatmeal at some point. So even though I do go back to LC when I want to drop a couple pounds (I'm in Maintenance now) I don't feel like I am in balance when I do it, because there are so many foods I restrict when I'm LC.
Sure, it works. It keeps me from over-eating, because it's so restrictive.
It's still calories in < calories out. I am under no illusion that I can over-eat my calories and still lose weight. That's not how it works.10 -
I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"13 -
I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
I see you got "woo"ed for this. Hopefully not a negative woo as I suspect you may be correct. It would be nice to see some backup for either position though. Not sure if there are studies on this or not.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »garystrickland357 wrote: »
Yeah, it was cold this morning. Tell me again why winter running in the dark is fun? Maybe I should train in the summer? No - wait it's too hot in Texas in the summer to run far. If I only could run in a climate controlled environment - treadmills! No - wait - I hate those things.
Couldn't someone just pass the doughnuts please?
Summer running can be a drag too. I can find something to complain about in every season!
That's why I like the bicycle. I can generate my own breeze as long as I'm moving. But when I stop, the waterworks start
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions