Right, time to lose weight.

[F ES Sitecore]

Eating no carbs? You think you're going to spend the rest of your life eating no carbs? You know that's incredibly unhealthy and unreasonable? Here's a simple idea around a change of lifestyle that is realistic and maintainable....don't drink three glasses of wine a night...400-500 calories a day saving right there.

[Munchies_Matt]

When I have got to a good weight I can on occasion eat refined carbs and sugars. And no it isnt 'incredibly unhealthy and unreasonable'. Mankind didnt have refined carbs or sugars till about 200 years ago. And no, not drinking red wine is NOT realistic.

[F ES Sitecore]

LOL Ok, I'll leave you to your pseudo-science mumbo jumbo. When you finally crack the science make sure you go to Africa to spread the word there, maybe help lift those poor uneducated people from their obesity crisis too.

[Munchies_Matt]

What on earth are you on? It is not 'pseudo-science' to state, correctly, that refined carbs and sugars are a relatively recent introduction to our diet and that hence not eating them is in no way dangerous, or odd. And WTF has Africa got to do with it?

[F ES Sitecore]

Your original post talked about carbs, not refined carbs and refined sugars. My reply was about carbs, you are now talking about refined carbs ergo are now fighting a straw-man argument as your actual arguments hold no weight.

[Munchies_Matt]

Well since plant fiber is a carb, dont you suppose I was referring to the usual rice, potatoes, flour trio? (not to mention sugars)

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

now fighting a straw-man argument as your actual arguments hold no weight.

Wow, I didnt realise me wanting to lose weight was such an argument. Apparently to some it is. You for example.

[F ES Sitecore]

Munchies_Matt wrote:

Well since plant fiber is a carb, dont you suppose I was referring to the usual rice, potatoes, flour trio? (not to mention sugars)

LOL so now we need to know what you mean, not what you say? Regardless, not eating refined carbs is fairly unrealistic too.

Munchies_Matt wrote:

Wow, I didnt realise me wanting to lose weight was such an argument.

I didn't say it was, I think it's fairly obvious the arguments I was referring to are your arguments that losing weight involves knowledge if chemistry, that it is complicated, that you can maintain a no-carb lifestyle and all the other things you (and others) have repeatedly said on this thread. Seeing as it looks like you're finally out of anything of merit to say there is no point dragging this onto semantics.

[Munchies_Matt]

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

so now we need to know

So you never heard of the GI diet, refined carbs? Really? Do we need to tell you everything?

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

not eating refined carbs is fairly unrealistic too

Because white rice, potatoes, and white flour is impossible not to eat? FFS get real would you.

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

your arguments that losing weight involves knowledge if chemistry

No I didnt. I never mentioned chemistry.

[F ES Sitecore]

Munchies_Matt wrote:

So you never heard of the GI diet

Garbage fad diet that won't help you lose weight in the long-term.

Munchies_Matt wrote:

Because white rice, potatoes, and white flour is impossible not to eat?

I said fairly unrealistic, not impossible....it's even in the text you quoted. Straw-man argument.

Munchies_Matt wrote:

I never mentioned chemistry.

You might not have mentioned the literal word chemistry, but when you talk about sugars, fats, insulin and their effects that is chemistry - "the scientific discipline involved with compounds composed of atoms, i.e. elements, and molecules, i.e. combinations of atoms: their composition, structure, properties, behavior and the changes they undergo during a reaction with other compounds"

[Munchies_Matt]

You are wrong and full of shit.

[F ES Sitecore]

F-ES: 1 Matt: 0

[Munchies_Matt]

That just proves it.

[F ES Sitecore]

F-ES: 2 Matt: 0

[Munchies_Matt]

See, you are fighting still. Since your first comment you have been antagonistic, negative, and combative. This post of yours just exposes you true intent. Why? Had a bad day? Compensating? Someone damaged you as a kid and you are angry at the world?

[F ES Sitecore]

Still got no actual arguments I see so are resorting to ad hominem. F-ES: 3 Matt: 0

[Munchies_Matt]

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[F ES Sitecore]

Bless, having the "last word" is all you have left.

[Munchies_Matt]

No really, :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[F ES Sitecore]

Bless, having the "last word" is all you have left.

[Dan Neely]

at 120kg he really should lose a bit of weight first. The rule of thumb I've seen quoted here is that above 250lbs (113 kg) the peak loads running puts on your joints begin to exceed the maximum that the joints were designed to withstand and the risk of a soft tissue injury starts to increase rapidly.

Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt