Anyone else on a diet and struggling?

JBD

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

You might want to check out this discussion on another thread for a more balanced and informative view. With information from a proper nutrition scientist rather than an anonymous blog

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=65465125&postcount=94

But it is backed by research.
Not to mention, basic common sense. People still lose weight on VLCD's, Ill health, anorexia, and real life starvation situations (famines,etc). Obviously, not in the healthiest way possible, but they still lose weight.

Breast_Cancer_Survivor

I lost 24 lb with Slimming World last year but since then have lost & gained a few lbs here & there. I'm currently still 5.5 lb up & starting to think i'm never gonna lose it cos despite how good I am with my diet I can't do any exercise which is what I obviously need now i've plateaued.

~Chameleon~

JBD wrote: »

But it is backed by research.
Not to mention, basic common sense. People still lose weight on VLCD's, Ill health, anorexia, and real life starvation situations (famines,etc). Obviously, not in the healthiest way possible, but they still lose weight.

But we're not talking about completely starving ourselves. It's about trying to find the right balance to achieve a healthy weight. Many people fail to do that. Of course you're going to lose weight if you continually starve yourself. And you will, eventually, die.

If it was as simple as reducing calorific intake to a bare minimum, we wouldn't have an obesity problem and the slimming industry would be on it's knees. So why is it, do you think, the complete reverse is reality?

Btw, the information I posted on the other link is all backed by evidence based scientific research.


ETA: Just for clarification the reason I referred you to the other link was to show you a more balanced view on the subject as the link Tinks had posted was an anonymous blog and could have been written by anyone, certainly not a renowned scientist or expert in the field. They provided absolutely no references to any of his/her claims and whilst containing smatterings of truth there was also a load of rubbish. I don't know whether you actually looked at it or not as I'm a little confused at your response to it.

Linda_D_2

Tink2 wrote: »

Mmmmm pizza!

That's tomorrow

Good for you Tinks, you deserve a pizza with all your amazing dieting:j:T

Tink2

nonnatus wrote: »

Gosh Tink, you really do add Tuna to everything!!


I hope you buy the good, line caught stuff - or you will be responsible for destroying gazillions of dolphins every year...?

I love tuna

Tesco pole and line caught is what I had yesterday

Tink2

Yesterday's stuff

Lemon and pepper salmon, wedges, lighter than light mayo - 662 calories

500ml low sugar monster, red ice pop - 43 calories

Seafood risotto with added tuna, green beans, onion, broccoli, sweet corn - 478 calories

151ml skimmed milk in tea - 55 calories

Graze slightly sweet popping corn - 116 calories

1354 calories
86.5 protein
136.9 carbs
12 fibre
49.7 fat

Pint of green tea
Pint of echinacea and black tea
Three waters with pain killers
330ml can Pepsi max

Cod liver oil
Raspberry ketone
Multi vit
Echinacea

Went food shopping today, got plums to try, cherries and a nectarine as well as salad, spinach (making spinach and egg muffins)

JBD

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

But we're not talkinSout completely starving ourselves. It's about trying to find the right balance to achieve a healthy weight. Many people fail to do that. Of course you're going to lose weight if you continually starve yourself. And you will, eventually, die.

If it was as simple as reducing calorific intake to a bare minimum, we wouldn't have an obesity problem and the slimming industry would be on it's knees. So why is it, do you think, the complete reverse is reality?

Btw, the information I posted on the other link is all backed by evidence based scientific research.


ETA: Just for clarification the reason I referred you to the other link was to show you a more balanced view on the subject as the link Tinks had posted was an anonymous blog and could have been written by anyone, certainly not a renowned scientist or expert in the field. They provided absolutely no references to any of his/her claims and whilst containing smatterings of truth there was also a load of rubbish. I don't know whether you actually looked at it or not as I'm a little confused at your response to it.

I'm not really sure what your issue is either. Tinks isn't exactly starving herself, either, even if she does go low on some days.

ab.da54

When are you next weighing in, Tink2?

Tink2

ab.da54 wrote: »

When are you next weighing in, Tink2?

26th of this month

~Chameleon~

JBD wrote: »

I'm not really sure what your issue is either. Tinks isn't exactly starving herself, either, even if she does go low on some days.

I haven't got an issue. I never said she was, far from it actually. I wasn't happy with the link she posted as much of it gave incorrect and false information so rather than people read it and going away believing it to be true "cos it says so on the internet", I was simply providing a more accurate and balanced view of the same subject as it just happened to be something being discussed on the other thread the previous day.

That's all. I'm not quite sure why you appear to have taken offence to me doing that. I always try to correct misinformation where I see it. There's enough rubbish circulating in this industry as it is so I like to point people in the right direction to enable them to make informed decisions.