cwsreddy Member

hm? I wasn't responding to GC in the least - simply responding to the douchebaggery of this thread, of which there is a lot and now to which I am contributing because funsies :laugh:

Isn't. That. Exactly. The. Point? smh

so giving up chocolate in your climate controlled house, driving your car to and from work, messing with your iPhone and iPad.... yeah... seems about equivalent to suffering in a friggin desert for a month and a half. :drinker:

:noway:

hmmmmm I see your point.... ruh roh.

eat... them.... later....?

daaaaamn you friendly. there may be a reason you're a cat lady.

yeah not even most of them. it's a way for people to "give up chocolate" and try and lose weight for a couple weeks. yep no chocolate totally = dying and suffering and all that jazz.

I'll participate.

^^^^^

yes. I'm sure that's it. :laugh:

Welcome to the joy that is the MFP forums. If you try to actually take care of yourself beyond calories in/calories out and you say so on these boards, you're gonna get flamed hard and fast. Tis a shame.

Well Catholic churches HAVE always been the gaudy ones :wink:

you're right. EVERY study. not just the ones the masses disagree with. :wink:

No it isn't. Keep doing what you're all doing and work on losing the weight! At the end of the day there will always be new studies and conflicting information but the ONE thing that doesn't change, is that you will be healthier if you're not overweight. That's the one CONSTANT in all these new studies. So until something…

Welp, never mind. Article lost all credibility to me when the lead researcher said this: "We are not saying go and do some crazy diet we came up with. If we are wrong, there is no harm done, but if we are right you are looking at an incredible effect that in general is about as bad as smoking." Um... what? Really?

I know. I've committed to giving it hard to both of them, but at the end of the day - and if i'm being honest - i'll be much more effective and have much more endurance if I can just take one at a time.

sure, at about a gram of protein per pound of lean bodyweight. no real need for more than that outside of extenuating circumstances.

and this study has been peer reviewed, as mentioned in the other thread. we should really consolidate... lol

I love the amount of "I don't want to believe it so it must be crap" going on in this thread. it entertains me. That said, a few people have mentioned the funding for this study so I'll copy paste from the other thread: This is exactly my beef (get it) with all the studies that support HFCS, fortified nutritients,…

no study proves anything. they all say may and might. do you even science?

Which is exactly my beef (get it) with all the studies that support HFCS, fortified nutritients, conventionally raised beef/chicken, blah blah blah - everything the government and the FDA says is "good for you", because those studies are inextricably tied up with big food, big pharma etc etc. Having noticed this I do think…

Boom! I've been saying it all along. I've always kept my protein down to about 1g/lb of lean body weight or under, even if I eat up to 4000 calories. Not surprised. Any time broscience and conventional wisdom say "You can't get too much ________" (in this case protein), something's gotta give.

oh thank god.

but you already posted once in this thread... are you in for the second time?

another brilliant contribution! thanks dude! welcome to the thread! :flowerforyou:

nice!

DROP THE MIC!

Don't need to read to know where this went. Y'all can delude yourselves all you want, but the quality of nutrition between two calories is not always identical. Sowwy.

purely depends on whether you care about nitrates and preservatives or not. If you don't think they're an issue then lunchmeats are fine. Personally I tend to avoid them.