Thermodynamics? Not really...

52 PAGES
first ... 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 next ... last
previous topic · next topic
Rita41

Joined: Apr 13
Posts: 186

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 08:01
Diablo ..exactly! You haven't even said that other methods don't work. It is the rest of the nonsense about metabolic advantage etc etc that you don't support.
Feelingsad

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 12

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 08:33
Diablo360x wrote:
. I have already stated people can choose whichever foods they want but he/she keeps saying that I think everyone should eat like me. Stop with the nonsense. Do whatever helps you adhere to the calorie deficit. Personal preference.



I think the OP is well aware of your EXACT meaning, the reasons why
I will leave up to you
Feelingsad

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 12

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 08:53
Of course there is a much quicker and effective method no one has mentioned


Liposuction!
SergeantS

Joined: Dec 12
Posts: 28

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 09:04
Didn't actually read all of the 16 pages on here but serious question, I'm torn because I've always been taught that 'eat less, move more' is the way to do it but I've only ever noticed substantial weightloss when I've cut right back on my carb intake..to me, 500cals of carbs and 500cals of protein seem to affect my body completely differently from one another. I'm quite 'good' at losing weight, generally I lose between 1-2 lbs a week provided I have been super smart with my food choices and done some exercise - these last couple of weeks I have experimented with a VLCD (very low calorie diet for those who don't know!), in all honesty, I don't have enough energy to do a full workout so I have been walking for 40 minutes a day just to keep active and in the last 2 weeks I have lost 1.8lbs. I am eating (well, drinking) 600 calories a day, no more, so if it is as easy as 'calories in, calories out' why hasn't the huge deficit made a significant impact? I'm used to losing twice the amount on low carb/high protein so I'm not quite sure as to why this didn't work as it should have. And for the record, I will be looking forward to some lovely roasted chicken tonight, this liquid/shake drinking instead of food is hideous!
Sweat like a pig, look like a fox

August 13th 2012: 202lbs (starting weight)
Christmas Day 2012: 169lbs
New Year's day 2013: Starting the Dukan Diet at 169.8lbs
1 Feb 2013: 160.4lbs
1 August 2013: 146lbs
Feelingsad

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 12

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 10:56
You metabolism is slowing down and your body is holding onto the fat as it is now in survival mode.
Up your calories and activity levels, 600 calories a day is way too low to be healthy
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 13:19
Diablo360x wrote:
Again this girl or guy 'reddarin' puts words in my mouth. I have already stated people can choose whichever foods they want but he/she keeps saying that I think everyone should eat like me. Stop with the nonsense. Do whatever helps you adhere to the calorie deficit. Personal preference.


That's funny.

This woman, or man, diablo spouts a lot of bold assertions and doesn't much care for his arguments to be dismantled and dragged out into the sunshine.

Unlike you, male or female, diablo, I quote you when I am responding to something you've said.

Only now have you adopted this moderate to each his own philosophy. And only after I've taken so much pain and effort to expose your iron fisted prescription for weight loss to be nothing more than a my way or the highway banana republic dictatorship.

Tell us. Be clear. You are saying now that if someone brings up LC, you are not going to tackle them and call them liars, stupid, spreaders of misinformation, etc etc?

It is a lot harder to take the positions you've taken when the account Spacey isn't here to run cover for you, isn't it?

I applaud your new found go along to get along attitude though, if it is real.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 13:35
Feelingsad wrote:
Would the OP be so bold as to send him an open letter to challange his assertions and make good his case openly and as himself?


Are you still blue my friend? I gave you fair warning. I wanted you to go back to helping people on your popular thread. But you chose not to do that. I hope you chose differently this time around. What is more important? Arguing with me or helping people that need help? I know you have some ardent fans. Several were brave enough to support you despite the blatantly sexist remarks you made with the other account. I don't think you fully appreciate what level of support that indicates. But I also believe you don't think what you said was sexist.

Before you start telling me you don't know what I am on about, let me head you off at the pass - Oh! Terribly sorry! I thought you were someone else! Beg pardon!

The answer is a resounding shout from the rooftops... NO!!! lol of course I wouldn't tangle with Colpo. You say Dr. Eades failed miserably to refute him and Colpo is the undefeated champion with a bounty for the first person to defeat him so why the heck would I attempt something like that.

I am knowledgeable about LC but I am not insane and I know, or try to know, my limitations.

But I invite you to try the same with Gary Taubes. Maybe you can find out his height and weight and then we'd know if he was really overweight or if that was just an ad hominem. Or Dr. Eades. Or Dr. Phinney. Or Dr. Volek. Or Dr. Mary Vernon. Or Dr. Westman. Or Dr. Diamond (Ph.D.). Or I'd even be interested in seeing you try to take down Jimmy Moore.

Smile
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 13:38
Diablo360x wrote:
I already have stated ANY diet will reduce your weight with a calorie deficit.


Actually, what you say is that the *only* reason a diet works is because of the calorie deficit. But it is complete nonsense because *how* you achieve the calorie deficit is the salient issue. Get it?

LC *allowed* me to achieve a calorie deficit and control what I eat. ELMM WB did not. But LC does a lot more than that for health without regard to weight loss. You don't 'believe' it and you produce studies that 'prove' your point. But there are studies that 'prove' my point.

You produce experts that renounce LC nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I produce experts, lots of them that actually work with obese patients, that say LC is nothing short of a miracle for the obese.

I've shown you direct evidence that the science supporting the mainstream ELMM WB is flawed or misrepresented and the arguments casually used, like thermodynamics, do not support assertions about the ELMM WB approach. You show me evidence that LC has no intrinsic benefit.

In the end you have decide which 'science' you want to follow.

But you go much further than that. *You* (and a few others) appoint yourself sheriff of Weight-Loss Forrest and *you* assume the authority to determine how the weight-loss community shall conduct itself. Further, *you* take it upon yourself to stifle dissent from the mainstream using the euphemism 'misinformation' when you really mean 'lies'.



Diablo360x wrote:
I never said reducing your carbs didn't work, I am only stating it offers no metabolic advantage.


You also have only a loose grip on the terms you are throwing around. 'Metabolic advantage' has a distinct meaning. Your friend liked to quote Colpo's vitriolic 'debunking' of Dr. Eades' blog post about 'metabolic advantage'. Dr. Eades did make a response that indicates that Colpo doesn't know what he is talking about.

But the term 'metabolic advantage' means a caloric advantage for LC'rs. E.g. we can eat more calories and lose weight than a non-LC person. The advantage depends on the individual but I think Dr. Eades guessed it could be as much as 300 calories.

And, of course, you are incorrect about it with respect to a caloric advantage:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolic-advantage/thermodynamics-and-the-metabolic-advantage/

Quote:
3. What Figure 1 of the paper shows is that metabolic advantage must exist between systems that rely to different degrees on gluconeogenesis. You learn this in biochemistry: it costs you 6 ATP to obtain glucose from GNG but, of course nothing if you start with glucose. So, there is a built in metabolic advantage. Not could be. Not debatable. It is there. Period. That is an absolute biochemical fact. So just as people thought metabolic advantage was excluded by the “laws” of thermodynamics (by which they meant the first law), “a calorie is a calorie” is excluded by the combined first and second law. (To try to use the first law in the absence of the second law is like, actually exactly like, using gravity without considering friction).


Please note that this doctor reconfirms that the Laws of Thermodynamics does not describe human metabolism and they do not support the CICO meme. I don't particularly blame a mainstreamer for being misled about thermodynamics because that canard is so ubiquitous. Jillian Michaels, not a rocket scientist, lectured Gary Taubes, a rocket scientist, about it on Larry Kind (I think).

You are also incorrect about the effect of carb reduction on insulin response. Notice *I* say carb reduction. *Your* response has been to bring up a straw man about the Glycemic Index. LC is not based on the GI. There are GI based diets that can be LC but vanilla LC has nothing to do with the GI.

Diablo360x wrote:
If anything the only macro that may make a difference is a high protein diet as there is this thing called the thermic effect of food. Protein takes more energy to break down.


This from the man that has been telling me that there is no such thing as a metabolic advantage with LC. If your carbs are low and your protein macro is moderate you instantly have a metabolic advantage with LC per *you*. While you are face down in your 'on plan' bowl of ice cream, I am getting a metabolic advantage by using those carby calories for a nice juicy steak.

Diablo360x wrote:
Just because I hate LC diets does not mean I have not tried them. I've been lifting and dieting seriously for going on 14 years. The thought that I have not tried LC diets is laughable. I had success but I could never maintain them for long because it was dreadful for me. Almost everything that I love foodwise contains carbs. The new science that shows it does not matter what you eat was like music to my ears.


What is laughable is your attempt to paint LC as some horrible burden that is impossible to bear that is a lie at its core anyway and the ELMM WB way as the *only* way to lose weight *and* a paradise of indulgence in carby treats.

You better contact the press and let them know that the new science says all that because from what I've seen the mainstream is still believes that eating 'healthy' is *the* thing.
mummydee

Joined: Feb 10
Posts: 2,224

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 14:00
Diablo wrote :"1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".

At no time did i say that I eat regularly to increase my metabolism. I eat regularly to constantly have food in me so that I don't get dizzy and light headed. If I eat an egg and bacon for breakfast at 6 I can go till 10 a.m. when I need something else, usually some fruit and cheese, then till 1 when i have salad and protein. (ten eat again at 3 and 6) It's constant eating that keeps me going. However if I ate oatmeal for breakfast at 6, i'd have to eat again by 6 or 9 because, again, i'd be shakey from no protein.
This is how my body works, and once again we all have to find out what works for ourselves.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 14:21
Nag1ka wrote:
reddarin,

I think one thing diablo is trying to say that keeps being misinterpreted when he speaks of restrition is the following:

What foods can you not eat on a low carb diet? (essentially anything carbs, ie sugar, donuts, pizza, pasta ect.)

What foods can you not eat on a low calorie diet? (there is no restriction in variety, just quantity)

Obviously you have a different opinion on what restriction means than diablo.


No sir.

What the guy or gal diablo does is paint LC as so restrictive that it is untenable, and at all times he/she maintains that carb restriction is unnecessary because CICO is god of hisr universe, *and* then he/she paints ELMM WB as the fruited plain where anything goes and carby treats abound.

But it is a false contrast. ELMM WB is not a free for all.

*That* is the problem with hisr faux-argument.

I pointed it out pages and pages ago:

Is LC restrictive? Of course.

Is ELMM WB restrictive? Of course.

...and I went on to debunk what diablo and a few of hisr friends claim about how much 'freedom' they have on ELMM WB.

But I appreciate what you are saying. He/she is not saying what you are saying though when you press him.

For example, I give himr a scenario - end of the calorie day for himr. Can he/she have that big carby bowl of ice cream?

(s)He has been saying all along, and most emphatically, that he can have anything (in all caps) at any time.

Can (s)he have the ice cream or not?

When he finally answers the question what is his answer? I mean, the parameters are very clearly delineated - end of calorie day can you have this carby treat.

Answer: If it falls under my calorie goals.

(S)he cannot answer this question honestly because then he/she has to admit that ELMM WB is not a free for all as he has described it to be.

Really, it is very tedious using the dual male/female pronouns. But we work at the level of the least common denominator around here so I must go with diablo's use of the dual pronouns. However, I think my courtesy is exhausted and I'll switch back to the masculine. How fun though diablo! What a wit you are!

Feelingsad

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 12

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 15:15
reddarin wrote:
Feelingsad wrote:
Would the OP be so bold as to send him an open letter to challange his assertions and make good his case openly and as himself?


Are you still blue my friend? I gave you fair warning. I wanted you to go back to helping people on your popular thread. But you chose not to do that. I hope you chose differently this time around. What is more important? Arguing with me or helping people that need help? I know you have some ardent fans. Several were brave enough to support you despite the blatantly sexist remarks you made with the other account. I don't think you fully appreciate what level of support that indicates. But I also believe you don't think what you said was sexist.

Before you start telling me you don't know what I am on about, let me head you off at the pass - Oh! Terribly sorry! I thought you were someone else! Beg pardon!

The answer is a resounding shout from the rooftops... NO!!! lol of course I wouldn't tangle with Colpo. You say Dr. Eades failed miserably to refute him and Colpo is the undefeated champion with a bounty for the first person to defeat him so why the heck would I attempt something like that.

I am knowledgeable about LC but I am not insane and I know, or try to know, my limitations.

But I invite you to try the same with Gary Taubes. Maybe you can find out his height and weight and then we'd know if he was really overweight or if that was just an ad hominem. Or Dr. Eades. Or Dr. Phinney. Or Dr. Volek. Or Dr. Mary Vernon. Or Dr. Westman. Or Dr. Diamond (Ph.D.). Or I'd even be interested in seeing you try to take down Jimmy Moore.

Smile


Either you stand by your convictions or you don't, they are either correct or incorrect, if you have faith in your beliefs they should stand up to ANY scrutiny but you run shy of Mr Colpo who has also systematically dismantled the arguments of all the people you have listed with his forensic attention to detail something the aforementioned people utterly lack in cherry picking arguments to suit their beliefs.

I think it's been same many years now and they have failed to put up a coherent scientifically validated response

I don't have to do anything because it has already been done. By some one far more knowledgeable than myself
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 15:28
Feelingsad wrote:
Either you stand by your convictions or you don't, they are either correct or incorrect, if you have faith in your beliefs they should stand up to ANY scrutiny but you run shy of Mr Colpo who has also systematically dismantled the arguments of all the people you have listed with his forensic attention to detail something the aforementioned people utterly lack in cherry picking arguments to suit their beliefs.

I think it's been same many years now and they have failed to put up a coherent scientifically validated response

I don't have to do anything because it has already been done. By some one far more knowledgeable than myself


You know, this is a very tired and very old canard.

*I* must have a doctorate in LC and be capable of refuting any mainstream expert in order for LC to be correct.

*You*, on the other hand as a mainstreamer, do not have to know your subject well enough to refute a popsicle.

By the way, clearly I reject your assertion that Coplo has settled the matter. How silly lol.

Smile

Feelingsad

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 12

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 15:49
reddarin wrote:



By the way, clearly I reject your assertion that Coplo has settled the matter. How silly lol.

Smile




Cognitive Dissonance at its finest!

You cannot reason your way through the argument neither can your champions yet you believe anyway!


BTW I think this constant referral to mainstreaming or as some call conventional wisdom

Is also somewhat short of the mark, I think the whole Atkins based LC paradigm is very mainstream one only needs to note the abundant threads on this site about carbs and people's obsession with them in the real world that it is clear it is very mainstream if unfounded then again many things are
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 804

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 15:59
mummydee wrote:
...we all have to find out what works for ourselves.


This. Period, end of story.



Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
Nag1ka

Joined: Jan 12
Posts: 101

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 16:01
reddarin wrote:


But I appreciate what you are saying. He/she is not saying what you are saying though when you press him.

For example, I give himr a scenario - end of the calorie day for himr. Can he/she have that big carby bowl of ice cream?

(s)He has been saying all along, and most emphatically, that he can have anything (in all caps) at any time.

Can (s)he have the ice cream or not?

When he finally answers the question what is his answer? I mean, the parameters are very clearly delineated - end of calorie day can you have this carby treat.

Answer: If it falls under my calorie goals.



My response to that in my own experience is..

Yes I can have that bowl of ice cream. the reason being calories in calories out does not HAVE to be measured on a daily basis. I might measure my calories on a weekly, or monthly, or yearly basis if I so chose.


I eat at a caloric surplus 3/4 days a week, and a deficit on the others. At the end of the week, month, or however long I want to count against, dictated my weight loss.
Feelingsad

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 12

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 16:14

Dr. Eades did make a response that indicates that Colpo doesn't know what he is talking about.

. The advantage depends on the individual but I think Dr. Eades guessed it could be as much as 300 calories.


This is the funniest thing I have read here thus far
'DR' Eades guesses (plucks out of the air) a 300 calorie figure based on absolutely Nothing and you quote it as fact.

Colpo destroyed this nonsense about 4 years ago!

have you actually read the MAD pdf it would help you stop quoting biased conjecture as science

The difference between a true scientist and someone who seeks to sell as many books a possible is that scientists peer review their work based on scientific principles to see if they stand up to scrutiny and change their viewpoint if they do not.
The idea is to seek the weak points in their own arguments whereas time and time again Eades, taubes et al do the complete opposite and cherry pick studies that they think suit their own, in one case Eades own argument lead to a low fat high protein metabolic advantage!


Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 16:16
I don't know about everyone else you mentioned but Taubes for one sells a book on his lies so of course he will continue to back his misinformation. It makes him a lot of money. You sit here and tell us that LC makes your body burn an extra 300 calories per day and want us to take you seriously. Somehow Eric Helms, Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald and many other experts are in the dark about this magical metabolic boost.

You're pushing a book in your avatar and you mention someone who has been debunked by many experts and you want us to take you seriously? Sorry, keep believing LC is special and not just one of many options that provide the same results given the same deficit/surplus over time. That placebo can be strong. Keep keeping on!

I have personally measured my calories in vs. calories out for close to two years and have lost more than the difference would suggest. I wonder if you've done the same thing? If you have you would have burned 213,600 more calories than me through that LC magic. An extra 61 lbs. of fat! Wow, what a sales pitch! Keep helping these people(maybe you?) sell these books!

On the matter of calling you he/she, I don't remember ever seeing you advise your gender, sorry if it offended you. You can clearly see I am a male so it obviously hit a nerve for you to take the time to do the same to me. Going for a jog, going to burn calories the old fashioned way, how hardcore of me. I could just let a LC diet do all the hard work....
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
Feelingsad

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 12

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 16:20
I never noticed the book for sale avatar surely that should contravene the spamming rules of this website?

this entire thread may just be one long Spam thread designed to sell that very book
ClassicRocke...

Joined: Jan 13
Posts: 949

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 16:39
erika2633 wrote:
mummydee wrote:
...we all have to find out what works for ourselves.


This. Period, end of story.




Absolutely. Exclamation

***It just means being more independent and not allowing your happiness to be dependent on someone else's demanding and contentious attitudes and actions.***

Wisdom from a friend


May I be free to be the me that I came into this world to be.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 18:52
Diablo360x wrote:
I don't know about everyone else you mentioned but Taubes for one sells a book on his lies so of course he will continue to back his misinformation.


Aha! Misinformation = lies.

Quote:
It makes him a lot of money.


I see. Money iz bad. U bad man 4 makeng money.

Say. Do you feel that books sold that promote ELMM WB are also evil?

Once again you just recycle the same tired bull.

Have you ever heard of a library?

Heck, I gave my WWGF book to a guy that was interested in knowing more. It didn't cost him a dime. All I asked was that he pass it on to another person when he finished reading it.

Quote:
You sit here and tell us that LC makes your body burn an extra 300 calories per day


Not only are you challenged trying to create a coherent argument and unable to grasp the simplest logic, you also have a hard time understanding what you are reading. Dang. *I* didn't sit here and tell you anything about me.

I had to describe the actual meaning of the term you were throwing around, 'metabolic advantage', and I was clear that I was explaining the term to you and you, in typical fashion, read what you want to read instead of what is written.

Very tedious.

Quote:
and want us to take you seriously.



lol

Uh. I don't want anything from *you* or your buddy. Being 'taken seriously' by you would be no victory to any living soul on the planet. There is that pesky arrogance peeking up again. I can see why you two get along so famously.

Quote:
Somehow Eric Helms, Alan Aragon, Lyle Mcdonald and many other experts are in the dark about this magical metabolic boost.


They are free to take issue with it with Dr. Eades. I quoted the other doctor that gave the basic biology behind it. Did you miss that? Here, I'll repost it for you to ignore again. You are very good at ignoring pesky stuff that shoots your arguments down. By all means, tell me how this doctor is incorrect.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolic-advantage/thermodynamics-and-the-metabolic-advantage/
Quote:
3. What Figure 1 of the paper shows is that metabolic advantage must exist between systems that rely to different degrees on gluconeogenesis. You learn this in biochemistry: it costs you 6 ATP to obtain glucose from GNG but, of course nothing if you start with glucose. So, there is a built in metabolic advantage. Not could be. Not debatable. It is there. Period. That is an absolute biochemical fact. So just as people thought metabolic advantage was excluded by the “laws” of thermodynamics (by which they meant the first law), “a calorie is a calorie” is excluded by the combined first and second law. (To try to use the first law in the absence of the second law is like, actually exactly like, using gravity without considering friction).


Go ahead. Point out how wrong he is.

Oh. Wait. I forgot. LC is wrong so there is no need to go any further than that in your thinking.

Quote:
You're pushing a book in your avatar


Hmmmmm. Lessee if I can follow your logic here. I assume the clothes you are wearing in your avatar are store bought? What?!? Quit trying to push your clothing brands on me!!! I bet the company selling those clothes makes money!!! How dare you!!

heh.

And, again. l i b r a r y. Say it slowly and sound it out my friend. You can do it!

Say, do you mean to tell me that the last iteration of you know who was pushing steriods??? His avatar was about steriods after all and according to your airtight logic it must mean he was trying to push them on us hapless victims.

Quote:
and you mention someone who has been debunked by many experts


Well now. There is some clear thinking right there. Who should I mention that would meet with your approval? Oh? Is there any LC expert that has not been debunked in your vaunted opinion? No? Well I guess you can see the problem then. Hang on, I forgot who I was talking to. You won't see the problem with that. It is okay. Go back to thinking about triangles and helicopters.

Quote:
and you want us to take you seriously?


Yes. My one wish in life is to be taken seriously by you. Say, I don't think your circle of 'us' is as big as you think it is by the way. Actually, there may only be the two of you in that small circle.

Quote:
Sorry, keep believing LC is special and not just one of many options that provide the same results given the same deficit/surplus over time. That placebo can be strong. Keep keeping on!


Gosh. Gee willikers! Can I really make up my own mind?!? Or are you just messing with me? Oh heck. You are messing with me. You already know the 'truth'. My God man, how callous of you!

Yeah. I "placebo'd" about 80 pounds away. That is a heck of a placebo. On the other hand, *your* placebo got me to 265 pounds. Hooray for LC! But no worries! *You* don't have to like LC or anything. It doesn't change LC and since LC isn't a person you cannot hurt its feelings. All you can do is try to brow beat people that don't agree with you. But you fail pretty bad at that too when someone refuses to allow you to do it. What a shame. Chin up though! I'm sure you'll get to try to intimidate someone else real soon! Why in no time at all you'll be demanding that everyone see it your way and they will or else!

Quote:
sell these books!


Psssst. Ix nay on the ell say of ooks bay. Remember? The mainstream sells a ton of books, dvds and exercise equipment. But we already covered that silly argument more than once. As usual.

Quote:
On the matter of calling you he/she, I don't remember ever seeing you advise your gender, sorry if it offended you.


lol riiiiiight. After this entire thread and the other thread you finally realized, 'oh my god I don't know if he is a guy or a girl. I better be sensitive'.

Say, I didn't offend you with the he/she thing did I? I couldn't figure out from your avatar what sex you were and I realized I didn't remember ever seeing you advise your gender sorry if it offended you.

Quote:
You can clearly see I am a male


Yes. You can clearly see my avatar is a book and books do not have a gender but you insult me with two genders when clearly I am a book. And before that I was a stick of butter.

I'm offended that you haven't been using the proper he/she the whole thread. That is very offensive. heh

Quote:
so it obviously hit a nerve for you to take the time to do the same to me.


Wait. Is this like Spacey's last iteration making a long diatribe and then telling me I'd be forever marked as a troll if I responded to it? lol You guys are peas in a pod.

Quote:
Going for a jog, going to burn calories the old fashioned way, how hardcore of me. I could just let a LC diet do all the hard work....


Keep working on your wit and I am confident that some day some way you'll make a funny!



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

exercise
If adding it yourself is too much, go to the exercise list. There are calisthenics in 2 or 3 levels as well as yoga (for stretching type things). I use the light calisthenics since I do them at home and ...
by msbuggirl on 19 Sep 14 11:48 AM
Health sidekick
I posted Health Sidekick in the promote your diet section. She then might have posted it here, but my point was I posted it first on the promote your diet section so if someone should take the slings it ...
by robbackatya on 19 Sep 14 08:32 AM
Contrary to popular belief the way to lose weight is not by Starving yourself or eliminating
Nice
by robbackatya on 19 Sep 14 08:16 AM
My take on things
I eat three big meals a day, I don't eat between meals, I've stopped eating cake, buns, doughnuts, pizza, pasta, sweets, chocolate, breakfast cereals, sugar, sweeteners, pastries like pasties and ...
by cucumberman on 19 Sep 14 07:33 AM
A question on carbs
My carb levels seem to rest around 5-15 daily.
by TheSatinPumpkin on 19 Sep 14 05:31 AM