What if you don't like beer, squats and fish. Does that mean you just eat oats and salad? (clown picture here)

No. It means you need to find another weigh.

None of this is rocket science.

Got it on the opposites.

JohnP so if you have a lot of fat, especially in the mid section, are insulin resistant, body is producing a lot of insulin, hungry all the time as your starting point, what would you or anyone else suggest?

I'm just going to add that research on the subject of dietary influences on insulin resistance is far from conclusive and hotly contested by scientists... you know, people who have PhDs and such.

Originally Posted by :
JohnP so if you have a lot of fat, especially in the mid section, are insulin resistant, body is producing a lot of insulin, hungry all the time as your starting point, what would you or anyone else suggest?

A (preferably very) high intake of Omega 3s from fresh, frozen or canned fish will smack that insulin resistance in the nuts and kick hunger. Eat salmon. Sardines. Trout. (more varieties available on request). With some eggs. And brocolli. Work out. And lose. Add some carbs if you like. Oats. A little bread. And honey wouldn't do no harm.

Omega 3s from fish annihilate insulin resistance.

Try it and c.

Originally Posted by Locke:
Hello All,

I'd just like to start a conversation about a trend that I've seen that is (in my opinion) degrading the quality of our community. There is a tremendous amount of infighting occurring between people who advocate different ways of losing weight. There are people who have seen good results from going low carb, eating intuitively, eating low fat, high fiber, etc. ad infinitum. I've seen several threads derailed into fights between people advocating different ways of eating.

This concerns me for a few reasons. Firstly, there are many regulars around here who make posting a routine (and this post is addressed to you folks), but there are also people who come here to ask a single question or have a concern addressed. It doesn't serve them to have a thread turn into a food fight between people who are advocating different lifestyle changes. There are also people who come here who are new to health, fitness, and lifestyle communities. They may not know that much about healthy eating and it can be confusing when the very people who are trying to help them are bickering back and forth about calories and carbs.

I hope everyone who has an opinion will weigh in. Perhaps this is a non-issue, but I feel that our community will be better off if we think before we post about these issues in Weight Loss Support- one of the busiest subforums and the one that seems to be the biggest problem for these kinds of things. I for one think that everyone should be able to share what works or hasn't worked for them. Did cutting out sugar and grain products help your weight loss? If it did then it also might be helpful to someone else- but we need to pay attention to how we say what we think works.

Here is my idea: use language that encourages people to understand that there are different things that work for different people. Let's take a common example: Susie is a new forum member and her first post is about how she is sick and tired of being overweight. She asks for tips about diet and exercise. Instead of saying "You should not eat carbs" or "You should eat foods in moderation" try "Cutting down on my carb intake has worked for me." If we all speak in terms of our own experiences it won't be as confusing or open for argument. I can't argue with the fact that you feel better eating X way, just like you can't argue with the fact that I have lost weight eating Y foods.

Talk about your experiences and direct people to different forums. "I have felt so much better eating intuitively, we have a support thread about that at this link... etc." will direct people to the subforums for different lifestyles. The bottom line is that different stuff works for different people. We don't need to turn Weight Loss Support into a trench war.

I'm really late to the party here. I've been so busy, I haven't even been here in a while. I read this thread. I'm confused. OP, your message seems to be that we should phrase things as not to insult other people choices in dieting. I agree. I can't say I've never strongly supported what I believe is right, but I can completely stand behind a more "live and let live" (or diet and let diet) attitude.

But then I noticed you posted this in response to an old thread I poste back in Jan. :

Originally Posted by Locke:
I eat junk food. Lots of junk food. Chips, candy, soda, cookies, ice cream, etc. I also eat some healthy meals. I eat when I'm hungry and stop when I'm full. Yes, sometimes I am not hungry and my mouth wants something to munch on (usually sugar). It's not a strong urge and it passes. I've been eating this way for a few weeks and I've never felt happier or saner- plus I've been losing about five pounds per week. There are a lot of people here who think you have to "eat clean" (which is ultimately a meaningless statement) to lose weight and that some foods have the power to make you fat. I just thought I'd toss myself in as an example of how that's not necessarily the case.

What the frick OP? Not only is eating clean not a meaningless statement, but I was asking a question about not reaching goal if you are no sugar no/low carb..really your response offered nothing to answer that. Also, you have no stats. That's great you are losing 5 pounds a week, but how big are you? Yes, when I hear someone say they are eating what they want and losing 5 lbs a week the first thing I do is look at their stats. Because lets face it, what works at 300 lbs is not going to work at 150. When I started losing after each baby, the weight came off faster and I didn't have to watch as much, but as the scale creeps down, I do not see weekly 5 lb weight losses! Even with a controlled diet and running.

Anyway, just figured I'd say I'm all for not pushing our diet preferences, and not insulting others. But OP saying the clean eating is a meaningless statement isn't really leading by example. And btw, you are wrong. Just google clean eating. Its far from meaningless! Its a term, with a meaning.

Originally Posted by IanG:
A (preferably very) high intake of Omega 3s from fresh, frozen or canned fish will smack that insulin resistance in the nuts and kick hunger. Eat salmon. Sardines. Trout. (more varieties available on request). With some eggs. And brocolli. Work out. And lose. Add some carbs if you like. Oats. A little bread. And honey wouldn't do no harm.

Omega 3s from fish annihilates insulin resistance.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/47339252.jpg

Thanks.

I wouldn't believe it myself if it were not for 110lbs+ down.

Nice. Happy place.

Ian,

I've had wonderful success also. I am doing a whole food, no grains, high fat approach with no vegetable oil except olive and flax seed on salads.

Lots of grass fed meats and wild caught fish. My ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 is much closer than it was before. The industrial vegetable oils have a lot of omega 6.

So yes Primal/Paleo is inherently better in omega 3 to omega 6 ratio.

@Glamourgirl

There are plenty of people who use the term clean eating with a definition in mind. I was simply stating that it means different things to different people. There is the connotation that it means whole foods or unprocessed but even these terms are unclear. "Processing" can have a variety of meanings- does putting chickpeas in a blender to make hummus make them a processed food? I wasn't saying it to be mean but rather to call attention to the fact that the term requires further qualification so that its meaning is clear.

You are right that I should have been more precise when I posted about eating refined foods. Perhaps that would have been helpful to people trying to make decisions. Also notice, however, that I referred only to my own experience to clarify that low carb is not necessarily the only way. I'm not going to claim to be perfect. I'm sure you can go digging through my history and find times when I've been belligerently pro-carb or anti-carb (I've gone through both phases). What I wanted to do here is start a discussion about how to come together as a community and think about what we are doing when we write comments and start posts.

Originally Posted by Pattience:
What if you don't like beer, squats and fish. Does that mean you just eat oats and salad? (clown picture here)

This post just made me laugh out loud- I was thinking the exact same thing after I read his post (in a humorous way, of course!).

Sad thing is, I wish I could eat fin fish- unfortunately, I am allergic to most fin fish and some shell fish as well as the skins of some kinds of onions. *sigh* I envy you all, I miss my smoked oysters so much....

Steel, (I"m calling you steel. I hope that's ok) nobody eats onions skins!.

Oh one funny but not really funny thing i will add now that the most serious part of the discussion is over. I woke up two days ago thinking i might try low carb for a little while, just to see what it felt like! Then i thought, wtf! Just stick with the program, then i won't have to go through headaches and withdrawals and all that other stuff. But i must admit that my curiosity did start to become tweaked by all this talk of low carbs. But for me right now, carbs are still working fine and I don't want to push my body through a process like that at this point in time. But if i fall of this wagon, rebound back to the beginning, maybe i will try it just for the sake of curiosity next time.

Fingers crossed though that there is no next time.

I think there was another diet i was thinking this about too. But for now i can't remember what it was.

Originally Posted by Locke:
I'm just going to add that research on the subject of dietary influences on insulin resistance is far from conclusive and hotly contested by scientists... you know, people who have PhDs and such.

Not true, actually. Insulin's physiological function is well know, it's the idea that some bodies have signaling that isn't appropriate that is argued - whether it is primarily insulin causing the issue or a feedback loop involving more complex endocrinology (where is the cause and where is the effect - I'd say it is clear, in clinical treatment, but the mechanism isn't cut and dry even as the signaling can be quite tightly controlled and augmented).

Having an advanced degree means little if you don't have the intellectual curiosity, sufficiently narrow and well controlled hypothesis, and recognition of your own biases to either interpret data or conduct experimentation that is of value.

Just sayin.

@arctic

You misunderstood what I meant but that's fine because what I said was vague. I think overall people here would be wise to have more humility and charity when approaching arguments and that's the most important and widely applicable point that I was going for.

Thanks to the OP for introducing a difficult subject and to the posters for demonstrating that 3FC can handle the difficult well.

The thread can close and we'll all go back to our various support threads.