|
shrike82 posted:It's not common but gym douchebags exist. Honestly thought it was people getting mad at someone for using the squat rack to curl. People die over that.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
quote:Don’t really know where to start, but here goes. I’ve never been strong/big or anything close to those words. I’m 19, 6’5 and 130lbs/59kg. I often go to the gym with my friend but I don’t go when he’s unavailable because I’m not confident going by myself. quote:Someone told me about this. I hope I’m not too late here, I’m traveling, but I wanted to chime in. Everybody starts somewhere, everyone fucks up, everyone gets laughed at eventually. That part of it has nothing to do with being fat. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, and that also doesn't mean every time someone has a chuckle at the gym that it's at your expense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, you would. Clinically, ketogenic diet is used continuously in most patients. In weight loss, leaving a ketosis diet results in the return of lost weight. An interventionist, temporary diet change is ineffective. Out of that systematic review you posted, the duration of the diets ranged from 4(!) to 365 days, which tells you a lot about the type of results achievable. 4 days is obviously not even long enough for the body to keto-adapt! There simply are no people who live in ketosis all the time - maybe tribespeople such as modern Masai would come the closest. What you really mean to say is that everyone is already on a 'diet' of some kind, which can be changed consciously if desired. There are many contexts in which ketogenic diets are recommended clinically and for a specific timeframe - for example prior to bariatric surgery to reduce excessive weight associated with complications during the operation . Obviously it is adopted only for a very specific timeframe. You can hear Dr. John Dixon from Monash University in Australia discussing pre-operative weight loss in this podcast: http://podbay.fm/show/362185781/e/1299571200 Flaky fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Dec 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 22:50
|
|
Flaky posted:Out of that systematic review you posted, the duration of the diets ranged from 4(!) to 365 days, which tells you a lot about the type of results achievable. 4 days is obviously not even long enough for the body to keto-adapt! There simply are no people who live in ketosis all the time - maybe tribespeople such as modern Masai would come the closest. What you really mean to say is that everyone is already on a 'diet' of some kind, which can be changed consciously if desired. Then you wind up with a rebound effect. The criticisms of ketogenic diets for lay consumer weight loss are well-documented. The clinical uses are either before a different intervention or for other chronic conditions that are considered worse than the side effects of ongoing ketosis. Long-term "keto-adapted" diets tend to be effective due to reduced caloric intake. They also have the side "benefits" of the harms created by ketosis. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Then you wind up with a rebound effect. The criticisms of ketogenic diets for lay consumer weight loss are well-documented. The clinical uses are either before a different intervention or for other chronic conditions that are considered worse than the side effects of ongoing ketosis. Long-term "keto-adapted" diets tend to be effective due to reduced caloric intake. They also have the side "benefits" of the harms created by ketosis. You have made a false distinction between 'lay-user' and 'people in a clinical setting'. They both need to lose weight. The absurdity of the situation for those patients undergoing bariatric surgery is that they are placed on a diet that makes them lose weight (calorie restricted ketogenic diet), and then once they reach some arbitrary amount of weight loss qualifying them for surgery, they undergo an invasive procedure (in order to allow them to lose weight) rather than... continuing on the diet until a healthy weight is achieved. 'Long-term "keto-adapted diets"' (what does this mean again?) may be effective because they are sustainable - ie. people find a given level of calorie restriction easy to comply with (because they don't get get hungry and eat more calories). Your systematic review included diets where people were eating nearly 5000kcals a day, no wonder they didn't lose weight. Even assuming a best-case scenario of only 10% calories from carbs, that's 500 calories, or 125g of carbs. That's simply not a ketogenic diet. The top total carbohydrate in this review of low-carbohydrate diets was 901g per day lmao. The conclusions skirt the lines of being evasively worded also "Low-carbohydrate diets had no significant adverse effect on serum lipid, fasting serum glucose, and fasting serum insulin levels, or blood pressure." Did they infact show a significant improvement? That would be consistent with other studies. Flaky fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 01:23
|
|
Flaky posted:You have made a false distinction between 'lay-user' and 'people in a clinical setting'. They both need to lose weight. The absurdity of the situation for those patients undergoing bariatric surgery is that they are placed on a diet that makes them lose weight (calorie restricted ketogenic diet), and then once they reach some arbitrary amount of weight loss qualifying them for surgery, they undergo an invasive procedure (in order to allow them to lose weight) rather than... continuing on the diet until a healthy weight is achieved. Flaky posted:'Long-term "keto-adapted diets"' (what does this mean again?) are effective because they are sustainable - ie. people find a given level of calorie restriction easy to comply with (because they don't get get hungry and eat more calories). Then the mechanism has nothing to do with ketosis, it's caloric reduction. The ketosis is irrelevant and only causes harm. "keto-adapt" is the term that you used to describe the mechanism of action in an earlier post. Flaky posted:Your systematic review included diets where people were eating nearly 5000kcals a day, no wonder they didn't lose weight. Even assuming a best-case scenario of only 10% calories from carbs, that's 500 calories, or 125g of carbs. That's simply not a ketogenic diet. The top total carbohydrate in this review of low-carbohydrate diets was 901g per day lmao. I don't think you know how a systematic review works. I am beginning to understand where you got your custom title from.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't think you know how a systematic review works. Please, lets keep the insulting of people's intelligence to a minimum. I could find a medically trained professional or academic source for every argument I have made in this thread. Where do you think I got them from? Here's just one example: "Meta-analysis is to analysis what metaphysics is to physics" - Richard D. Feinman, former co-Editor-in-Chief, Metabolism and Nutrition Flaky fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 03:20
|
|
Flaky posted:Please, lets keep the insulting of people's intelligence to a minimum. I could find a medically trained professional or academic source for every argument I have made in this thread. Where do you think I got them from? Yup, you don't understand how systematic reviews work. You're also continuing to cite to people who are selling zero or low-carb diets. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's not common but gym douchebags exist. I remember a girl doing this type of shaming around here last spring. She was banned from the gym in two days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yup, you don't understand how systematic reviews work. You're also continuing to cite The only thing you have demonstrated is an inability to critically read scientific papers, or draw the appropriate conclusions. Your own source plainly doesn't support your argument that "criticisms of ketogenic diets for lay consumer weight loss are well-documented" "There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets,..." - Bravata et al (2003) Efficacy and Safety of Low-Carbohydrate Diets: A Systematic Review, JAMA. Discendo Vox posted:"keto-adapt" is the term that you used to describe the mechanism of action in an earlier post. If people are curious about the biochemistry of 'keto-adaptation' they should watch this lecture with someone who knows a bit about biochemistry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX9SuVc3yNg Flaky fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
I lost weight while still eating carbs In fact I think this is the ideal way to lose weight, because you can eat such cool things such as bread, and chips, and pie
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I have probably gained back 5 lbs in the Diet Hell Zone that is the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas Based on this evidence, I feel the best way to lose weight is the elimination of holidays, potlucks, and seasonal baking sprees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
How do we make people with physical disabilities/mobility issues be healthy? I'm physically disabled and I find it hard to exercise. And no, my physical disability has nothing to do with being fat. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Violet_Sky posted:How do we make people with physical disabilities/mobility issues be healthy? I'm physically disabled and I find it hard to exercise. And no, my physical disability has nothing to do with being fat. Well, changing your diet (permanently) would be a good start. I don't know your disability specifically but many people find swimming to be a good exercise for those who are disabled/elderly. If I knew more I could provide more helpful advice. You don't have to tell me what you suffer from but more info regarding your physical abilities would be helpful. (Do you have full control of your limbs or partial control? Is your breathing affected? Stuff like that.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:48
|
|
Violet_Sky posted:How do we make people with physical disabilities/mobility issues be healthy? I'm physically disabled and I find it hard to exercise. And no, my physical disability has nothing to do with being fat. This is the kind of situation that good universal healthcare would be especially applicable. Beyond that sort of subsidy for personal trainers/care clinicians, I'm not really sure. My understanding is that the prosthetics market is a corrupt hellhole in particular- medical devices as a field often has problems, and there's a clinical component of individualized care in prosthetics that really invites abuse. Slipup's right that dietary interventions will help for weight loss, but the larger physical fitness problem is an issue for therapists- and therapists cost money. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Flaky posted:Please, lets keep the insulting of people's intelligence to a minimum. I could find a medically trained professional or academic source for every argument I have made in this thread. Where do you think I got them from? former because he's an idiot, I surmise? good grief
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Violet_Sky posted:How do we make people with physical disabilities/mobility issues be healthy? I'm physically disabled and I find it hard to exercise. And no, my physical disability has nothing to do with being fat. You can probably find out through online groups what other people with your disability do, its probably a lot more things than you think!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:I lost weight while still eating carbs Agreed, bread is good and awesome. I've lost over 90 pounds since January. All I did was reduce caloric intake and go for walks in the evening. I still eat lots of ~carbs~.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
OK but when your diet is 70% carbs 'eating less calories' really means eating significantly less carbs. Picture your high fat/protein% meal (probably dinner w. family). Given the deliciousness and effort required to cook it chances are it's not there that you're sparing calories (unless you simply don't eat the carb portion which is also a very simple thing to do) I try to get carbs as low as possible without being religious about it, but those I do eat will be with dinner (smaller serving of starchy veg/pasta/rice). This is mostly because that's the meal where the most effort/money has been expended, so the carbs are the best tasting (and healthiest). Cutting out bread, cereal, desserts and sugary drinks really isn't such a huge deprivation, it's really easy and very sustainable especially when you start to notice the side-effects (reduced hunger, stronger hair, clearer skin, less joint pain). The hard part is eating/drinking socially, but I think of those as cheat days anyway. Flaky fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
After losing a bunch of weight and getting fit, I plateaued for awhile. I cut carbs and then lost that last bit of flab and became lean. But here's what I think really happened: in changing my diet I think I just ended up replacing the carbs with healthier lower calorie and more filling alternatives. That was years ago and since I've been eating carbs again. Certainly not flabby now but not the mean machine I used to be, despite commensurate activity. I'll probably go carbless for awhile again, not because I believe in some voodoo about carbs, but because it's a simple rule that leads to lower caloric consumption. Carbs are delicious and all, but I can make some pretty good dishes without them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Yeah that's my experience as well, for a while I believed the low carb voodoo stuff but really it's just because my diet was like 50% lean protein and its really hard to overeat with a diet like that. I still do a lowish carb diet when trying to cut a bit of weight but there's no reason to go even remotely close to the point where you'd go into ketosis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
I find it baffling that HAES equates "dieting was hard and I didn't have the willpower and I quit" to "diets don't work, scientifically proven!". 6 years ago there were months on end Where the only liquid Id consume was Pepsi twist, I balooned up to almost 200 pounds. I then cut out all sugars and bread (kind of following the montignac diet) and did no sport whatsoever, dropped 22 pounds. I hovered around 187 until this year in March when I said gently caress it, I'm watchin what I eat and hitting the gym 5 days a week. At 34 I am now at 165 lbs, with increased muscle mass and looking better than my scrawny college self. Had I given up post first diet I'd be the poster boy for their narrative. Guess what, what you need to do is stop being a baby and realizing yeah,feeling and looking better takes effort, resilience and discipline. I get that mustering the willpower is loving hard, don't I know it, but diets do work, with an ammendment - dont view them as something you drop once you get to your goal, it doesn't work that way, and never will. Still wanna eat more, your only move is to do so much weight training that you turn all that stuff you crave for into muscle mass (and that doesn't exactly cover everything, either). Diets don't work is such a fallacy I'm baffled as to how it can apparently hold up. And I bare no ill will towards any obese people, it's their business. Granted, where I live there are very few seriously overweight people under 40, and I doubt fat acceptance has any pull around here. I have a good friend struggling with some serious extra weight and all I can tell him is sustine et abstine, there's no magic bullet, just hard work and hands off the cookie jar. And he knows it and I'm proud of his trying hard, even if he gives in on almost a weekly basis. As for fat percentage in my side of the world, overall it's low but increasing in kids. I read that even happens in Italy, and there's a huge discrepancy between fit adult Italians and their kids. My Italian friends I discussed it with chalked ot up to McDs and such poo poo food finally carving its niche i to their culinary stronghold. Via kids, apparently. It's a damned shame. E: apologies for typos, late night posting on ipad. Mr Underhill fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure there is a severe sense of alienation when you tell people they should only eat 50g or less of carbs a day. Like, walk into a supermarket and point out the items you could eat 2000 calories of without also eating 50g of carbs - essentially the deli section, some parts of the fresh produce section, barely any of the dairy aisle (mostly sweetened or 'low-fat' these days). And then an essentially random smattering of individual items like coconut, tinned seafood, walnuts, cooking oils, vinegar, soy sauce. Every other item, the whole middle of the store essentially, is off limits. ^^^ Sounds like you're in France, which has a remarkably low incidence of heart disease for a modern country, mostly due to monumental consumption of cheese and preserved culinary and local market culture which encourages consumption of local whole foods (vegetables/meat/dairy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox Flaky fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
50g of carbohydrates is, what, 200 calories? Yeah, telling someone only 10% of their diet can come from carbs seems pretty severe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
The Medical community doesn't really take Obesity seriously and cares very little about obese patients. Which is very sad because it is a very serious condition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Obesity is an easily cured condition, why should doctors waste their time with people who can't give a poo poo about getting better? That's a therapist's job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:50g of carbohydrates is, what, 200 calories? Yeah, telling someone only 10% of their diet can come from carbs seems pretty severe. That's more than a cup of cooked long-grain white rice every day. Doesn't really seem unreasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
I have lost about 45lbs in the past five months by cutting total calorie intake and slightly increasing my activity level. It is certainly true that carbs have been cut more than other categories, but not as a goal, just as a side effect of cutting overall calories. Carbs are not magic fat makers, they are just a source of calories. I also cut fat by eating far fewer fried things, but again, not because I'm scared of dietary fat, it just happens to have s lot of calories.Flaky posted:That's more than a cup of cooked long-grain white rice every day. Doesn't really seem unreasonable to me. More than a whole cup of cooked rice? In a single day? Back away from the fork, fatty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 11:46
|
|
Trent posted:I have lost about 45lbs in the past five months by cutting total calorie intake and slightly increasing my activity level. It is certainly true that carbs have been cut more than other categories, but not as a goal, just as a side effect of cutting overall calories. Carbs are not magic fat makers, they are just a source of calories. I also cut fat by eating far fewer fried things, but again, not because I'm scared of dietary fat, it just happens to have s lot of calories. Thank you for being sane. I was giving up on the thread as it rapidly regressed to some sort of parody. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Also chiming in here. I've lost about 100 lbs in the past 7 months. I started off with low carb (<20g/day), but after a few months I got tired of the restrictions and just tracked a 500 calorie/day deficit with MFP. Weight loss has proceeded at pretty much the same pace, and fruit/oatmeal/milk makes a much nicer breakfast than bacon every day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
did you track calories while you were low carb? What did you eat/avoid? I honestly don't know what a <20g/day diet even looks like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
Flaky posted:did you track calories while you were low carb? What did you eat/avoid? I honestly don't know what a <20g/day diet even looks like. I didn't track calories for the first three months, beyond three rules of 0 carbs when possible, eating only when hungry, and sticking to three meals a day. Rapid weight loss followed, though you should keep in mind that since I was over 300lbs, The deficit I would be eating at just doing 2000 calories a day would be enormous. I started tracking calories in September, then went off low-carb in early November. Never experienced undue fatigue, "keto flu", or any other physical symptoms beyond frequent, watery stool for the first 2-3 weeks. As for what I ate, it's not pretty. Because all fruit and large numbers of vegetables were off-limits, I was pretty much restricted to meat, cheese, olive oil, and leafy green vegetables. Peanut butter helps, as does increasingly elaborate bakery substitutes like coconut flour and cream cheese to make low-carb pancakes. Avocados were also nice, given their huge amount of potassium. While monotonous, it was very filling, to the point where it wasn't too great a hardship to end some days on 1100-1200 calories. I also took a multivitamin and a magnesium supplement, since ketosis flushes nutrition out of your system really fast (or so the advice goes). My major source for new recipes and "safe" foods was https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/, which is a good resource for anyone wanting to understand the eating habits of people who do low-carb. In the end, though I was still losing weight and feeling fine, I got tired of how strict it was and how accidental failures could make me snap and binge when I realized my mistake. I was also getting spooked by how cultish some of the /r/keto crowd got. Endless tales of "my doctor is so dumb, why can't he support me?" or "I feel smarter. is it because I'm keto-adapted?" I do feel better in virtually all ways, but now that I'm ingesting sugars and breads again and still feel great, my feeling is that I (and others like me) lost weight for the first time in my adult life and attributed the good to the diet, rather than the weight loss. Overall, I guess I feel that there were a lot of good effects from the diet (being forced to cook all my own meals, paying close attention to nutrition info, breaking sweet-eating habits), but these were incidental and probably would have happened if I had stuck to any other diet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 12:15
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:
It's actually easy if you have the mindset to cut through the bullshit, and the willpower to stick to the plan. Having the foresight to make the plan within your likely tolerances is vital. Simply reducing calories won't necessarily make you lose weight if you are eating a ton, so you have to figure out where your target needs to be so that you are at a deficit, however slight, overall. Any gimmick more complicated or restrictive than that is probably not sustainable and definitely not at all necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
A three-course meal for $12 sounds loving disgusting, unless you're in some country where food costs like 20% of what it does here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
"personal anecdote" "exercise for weight loss" "asceticism" "eat what you want" "willpower" "low-cal" "Simply reducing calories won't necessarily make you lose weight if you are eating a ton, so you have to figure out where your target needs to be so that you are at a deficit, however slight, overall." Jesus just stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Flaky posted:"Simply reducing calories won't necessarily make you lose weight if you are eating a ton, so you have to figure out where your target needs to be so that you are at a deficit, however slight, overall." He's right, actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
[guy who has lost weight]: If you reduce your caloric intake below what you need to maintain weight you will lose weight [extremely knowledgeable internet dietician]: *slams 17 ketogenic diet pamphlets down on the ground angrily* what the gently caress. Waht the gently caress!! WHAT THE F
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151207-the-air-that-makes-you-fat Totally legitimate reason. It's not because you eat like poo poo, it's because of the drat pollution in the air!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Pastor Perineum posted:http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151207-the-air-that-makes-you-fat Pretty sure that what it's saying is that the pollution in the air might contribute to making people eat like poo poo: quote:Tiny particles irritating the lungs may set off a cascade of reactions throughout the body, disrupting the hormones that control appetite
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
We've been through all these arguments a thousand times in this thread and others before it. It is in no way surprising that a jumble of essentially random evidence-free thought bubbles ends up as a totally incoherent and self-contradictory mess of a post. Where is the evidence that *willpower* has any influence on body weight? It is widely accepted in the scientific community (because many, many studies, such as the Minnesota starvation experiment have shown) that eating at a caloric deficit is only possible in the short term and under extremely well-controlled conditions, such as when patients are confined to a metabolic ward. This type of dietary intervention is of limited real-world relevance for many obvious reasons. This is why all diets focussing on calorie restriction work...but ONLY for a while. It seems to be well known and accepted, even here, that exercise simply is not an effective way of losing weight. It may burn calories, it may build muscle, it may contribute to a boosted metabolism in ways that are not well understood, but trying to burn more calories than you eat is futile. It will only make you hungrier, and bring the point at which the dietary intervention is no longer complied with closer. And yet it is still advocated regularly as an essential weight-loss tool. When it clearly isn't. It can't be. A human body is not a closed system. Calories in just does not equal calories out, no matter how much you wish it to be so. It is an oversimplification, one that is cloaked in a veil of pseudoscientific (and not just any science, physics - the king of science!) language. And goons love them some simplicity it seems. Especially clowns like fishmech who consider themselves an authority. Discussing 'low-calorie' foods as though that meant anything is misleading. If you wanted to be merely unclear and not flatly incoherent you might refer to 'nutritionally dense' foods, but what is usually meant here is that the food contains a high proportion of other nutrients relative to the number of calories. It has absolutely nothing to do with the absolute size of the food, or the weight of the food, or the water content, or even the density of the food. When you hear the phrase 'empty calories' or 'junk food' as opposed to 'nutritionally dense', the generally accepted meaning is food that contains a lot of calories relative to the amount of other nutrients. It is a lazy and unhelpful shorthand, but apparently goons cant get enough of this generalised and confusing terminology, as if updated language will make the problem any easier to understand. Where the hell does asceticism or pleasure come into anything? We all know eating sugar is pleasurable. We aren't here to do the pleasurable thing, we're supposed to be here to follow the loving scientific evidence and lose some weight. If you look at the reason why people stop using a low-carb diet, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the ineffectiveness of the diet. We have an example on this page: The Baalor posted:In the end, though I was still losing weight and feeling fine, I got tired of how strict it was and how accidental failures could make me snap and binge when I realized my mistake. I was also getting spooked by how cultish some of the /r/keto crowd got. Ironically, this was at roughly the 6 month point at which most diets, of any type, are abandoned, and what do you know, the weight loss has slowed. Eventually it will stop altogether, and maybe even go backwards, because the intervention is no longer being complied with. Hopefully he has learned enough not to go back totally to his old ways and end up 300lbs again. Exactly like all the other dietary interventions that are temporary. People just wont learn, they can't seem to accept, that they are not allowed to eat things that taste sweet with abandon without consequence. It is absolutely amazing the number of people who will, despite losing considerable weight, abandon a strategy that is clearly working for no real reason. Not only that, but they then ascribe their success to a completely independent variable. His conclusion literally leaves me speechless: The Balor posted:Overall, I guess I feel that there were a lot of good effects from the diet ...but these were incidental and probably would have happened if I had stuck to any other diet 
Flaky fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:46
|
|