It might not be addictive in the sense that a withdrawal episode would occur - but the ingesting of sugar can very much be habit forming to the point of people jokingly saying 'addiction.'

So it is within reason that people would swap the term without thinking "clinically."

Something doesn't have to be clinically addictive to be disastrous to an addict, or people with mental problems that have difficulty correctly associating love and happiness. I suggest you learn more about addiction and mood disorders.

There's water in the coffee, tea, and soda.

I'm at 561cals today with 72oz of fluids.
12oz coffee, 12oz soda, 48oz water

I'm feeling much better than this morning, not sick, not hungry, but very tired.

Eating over 1.5 kCal per day might be more sustainable and make you feel better

Why isn't any of that in the log?

lol logaments

Black coffee - no milk/cream/sugar? Plain tea? Always diet soda?

I guess if it's consistent...

She's posted before about drinking coffee black with Splenda. Tiny rocks

Always diet. Amazing what cutting 500 calories of coke a day does to your weight over the course of a year.

Friday log:

You're just trolling Monte bringing back the protien, aren't you?

Are you drinking a half cup of milk?

This takes the title for most condescending, most smug three-word phrase you can offer, right? If there's something obviously wrong people will just lol, but any time someone says, "show your work," it's a guarantee they know they're right.

"This takes the title for most condescending, most smug three-word phrase you can offer, right?"

It's only a small wonder it came from Mikkel05 then I guess.

If MLYLT can keep it to a under 1500 average for 6 months I'll donate 40 monopoly (CDN) dollars to a mental health charity. Otherwise that money goes to Starbucks.

But she really just needs to keep under 2k a day, and keep code3's dick far away IYAM.

Why do you comment on things without bothering to know anything about the subject? There are two links I've posted (one that still is only epub its so recent) that address this topic.

Yet here we are reading some inane speculation on your part. Almost everything you post is some variant of wrong or inane.

You mean like all the study I read and linked that deal with the mood effects of LC and LF diets in obese patients?


Its really about picking battles. Thayer is aggressively wrong and its mildly amusing to watch him attempt to backtrack on his stance and retrench to this speculation involving rat studies and non-responsive epilepsy.

What was the reason behind not noting this study?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...12501/abstract


I already know why you would ignore this one, since we're only analyzing healthy humans and that's what M is so any other study doesn't matter.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/ea...03846.abstract

Here's another one:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....2007.516/full


Let's remember that your argument is that her cutting tons of sugar out of her diet would be disastrous to her mood(as cited in 1 study while conveniently ignoring others) and that it would impair her cognitive function(which was actually disproved in that same study you used for the former)

You really don't understand how to science in any meaningful way. So let me explain. Observational studies don't draw conclusions other than to raise questions that should be investigated. In the study you linked they come to that exact conclusion because they are actual scientists.

The first study is on diabetic patients. The latter on obese women. The latter presents interesting findings showing LCKD being superior, but then we get to some of the issues with the fact you don't science. For example who paid for the study: "Funding for this study was provided by the Robert C. Atkins Foundation. " Seems somewhat... questionable. Much like a study paid by Phillip Morris showing no effects from cigarette smoking. Or the limitations showing a marked drop out rate in the LF group compared to the LCKD, the supplements provided to the LCKD group and the fact that everyone was at a LC practice previously. You don't actually read these studies so it isn't shocking you provide a shill study, an observational study and then one that deals with diabetic patients. (Cause clearly people with impaired insulin function are a great subset to study isocaloric carb/fat diets.)

You are also blatantly fabricating my argument. My argument is simply that you are wrong, and provide terrible advice by advocating LC with no evidence to support your view other than delusional theories you conjure up.

I learned that obese people don't suffer from the same issues affecting cognition in healthy weight individuals. I wasn't aware of this, which is why reading studies that deal with the specific illness someone has is useful and extrapolation can only be so meaningful. As we attempt to extrapolate (from rats and drug-resistant epilepsy) we need to be aware of the limitations. Healthy individuals frequently have downgraded mental function on low carb diets, apparently this is not the case for the obese.

Also, your hyperbole about her mood is silly. I never once made that claim, but given the weight of the current evidence and her eating habits, there is no reason for her to switch to LC, and a slight benefit to advocating a LF diet in a vacuum.

You were furiously contending that sugar is addictive, carbs are addictive, and a LC diet has superior benefits. You are unable to support any of these claims as they're all total bull****, which leads you to linking rat studies, childhood epileptics, and literature reviews because you don't know what you're linking. You literally just look for someone in a search engine, see if it agrees with your world view and link it.

M05,

one of the skills, you are completely lacking, is to present your arguments in a convincing way. Actually would be useful to learn it as an aspiring entrepreneur.

Where are your arguments? You tell basically that all T presents is somehow faulty (and no I didn't follow your discussion closely) but you don't offer an alternative solution. And you should really work on how you express your thoughts. I mean imagine that you have to convince T to invest in your business and he isn't really convinced. Is that the way to do it?

I have no clue what was wrong with my post either.

I guessed you were assuming I was advocating LC when my motive was her hitting the calorie goals w/ a meal she might really like.

Why do you think real maple syrup makes any difference?

lapka,

I don't care what you think. You're my intellectual inferior by a fairly massive margin and by your own admission have not even bothered to follow the interaction, what value do you think provide here?

I think it's fairly obvious Mikael has abnormal autism. Not sure why everyone is picking on him

Fair enough.

I'm not a breakfast eater ftmp and had always heard that with real maple syrup it was superior to the degree that you needed less off it.

Was trying to maximize taste and minimize calories was all, playing to the audience.

That seems much more reasonable. I rarely breakfast as well. I use maple for veggies/etc, but keep in mind it is pretty expensive.

The overarching issue is that your advice doesn't move the needle and reduces compliance. The idea for fatties is to make small incremental changes. We're not trying to get her to hit the G4S life where you just skip 3 meals or whatever insanity I do where I drink 2 protein shakes and then eat a coffee cake.