Posts by Megan Morales5

Kyle Nelson2 said:Having actually worked alongside pharma professionals and seen firsthand how the drug approval process works, I find this claim pretty idiotic.

Getting a decent medication approved these days costs roughly $300 million—so, you tell me if anyone’s just throwing money around for fun...
Then there are the clinical trials, pre-clinical testing, and specific studies involving infants, the elderly, pregnant women, people with kidney disease, and so on and so forth.

To everyone out there claiming medications are some kind of scam: I suggest you at least be consistent and stop taking any medicine at all, just so you can actually stick to what you preach. A lot of drugs originated in nature, but today they're synthetically produced for good reason—there's nothing revolutionary about that.

You're going to extremes here...

A drug isn't inherently bad. What's bad is letting an insufficiently tested product hit the market—which happens, whether you want to admit it or not. Often, it occurs simply because the race for market share is so cutthroat; companies rush to release something new just to beat the competition to the patent.

nimbleangler34 said:@ Drew Garcia67...

Sarcasm (from Greek)... a sharp, bitter mockery—basically a merciless rebuke.

What I was trying to get at is how much it grates on me when people reflexively link doctors and big pharma to corruption, crime, or the mob—call it whatever you want... It turns out everyone’s just looking for a payday, putting their own wallets and interests above everything else... I just don't buy into that generalization...

Of course they aren't ALL like that—you're throwing out an accusation nobody actually made here. But if I happen to run into just one "bad actor" who screws me over with the wrong medication, my little knowledge of all the honest ones being fine doesn't really help me, does it, Kuzis?

Does anyone actually care about how the massive pharmaceutical industry works? These companies have more money than some entire countries... if you ever bother to read The Disease Finder, you'll see exactly how they play patients. (J. Blech) It breaks things down in a clinical, concise way—showing that roughly two-thirds of their budget goes straight into marketing while only a third touches actual research. That’s why we end up with drugs that get pulled from the market after a few years, long after they've already ruined lives. The book also explains why your doctor—someone you're supposed to trust—will hand you that prescription even when they know what they're really giving you. There's also "Three Times a Day," which covers all those drugs being prescribed that should have been banned ages ago because they're just too dangerous...

Ashley Moore8 said:And what if Ashley Nguyen5 is a woman?
What kind of cotton socks would you even wear with pumps 😁?

Do women only ever wear pumps? Give me a break... 😁 My girlfriend wears knee-highs in the winter and light cotton socks in the summer—she’s perfectly fine. It's easier when there isn't some strict office dress code hanging over your head. My mother wore nylon stockings her whole life, though if I recall correctly, her feet started sweating the moment she made them a daily habit. These days, at least there are decent boots or flats where you can actually wear socks (they don't have to be white, obviously; dark ones work too). Thanks for the "constructive" input...

For me, it was all about using foot powder and making sure I always had a fresh pair of dry socks on hand—I used to carry an extra pair in my backpack everywhere I went. You have to be careful to stick strictly to 100% cotton, too. It’s surprisingly hard to find these days; most brands just blend in a bunch of synthetic fibers, usually around a third of the fabric... once I hit about six months of this routine, I woke up one morning and realized my feet just weren't sweating anymore. My socks stayed bone-dry all day long, so I finally stopped using the powder just to give my skin a break. But before that breakthrough, you really had to be disciplined—changing into clean, dry socks three times a day and applying powder every single time.

nimbleskipper13 said:And those people mentioning that single little spot—the opening just below the top of the tailbone where it meets the sacrum area... that could very well be a fistula opening from a pilonidal sinus...

So, what would we call that in American English? Honestly, I think those little dimples are kind of sexy...

melloweagle26 said:it's just a relic of the past—basically nothing more than a leftover bit of a tail, really...😬

Are you kidding me, or are you actually being serious? I’m no scientist, so it would be way too easy for someone to pull the wool over my eyes on this one.

northerntrucker2 said:I don't have any of those little dimples at all—though I did notice just one right in the middle, slightly higher up...🙄

Well, I definitely have one. It’s this tiny little indentation right in the center, almost like someone poked me with a needle and left a mark... I've had it for as long as I can remember. What exactly is that thing?

Personally, I’m obsessed with those dimples on a woman's backside... it’s easily one of my favorite things.

You weren't being boring—it’s just that my own ignorant take on this stuff is pretty hard for me to stomach... looks like we were both reading the same thing at the exact same time http://diabetes.webmd.com/nutrition

where did you get the idea that someone with diabetes would just "fall into a coma"?

What I meant was regarding that specific type of diabetes where things are managed strictly through diet alone, without insulin—I can't recall the exact medical term or stage—but specifically when someone trying to manage it solely through food intake starts consuming exactly what I described.

You answered based on how YOU behave when fries are on the menu, whereas I was talking about what the average person—someone who doesn't have to follow strict dietary restrictions for health reasons—does. They eat the fries, they eat the whole portion, and they go about their business...
I’m no expert on diabetes, so I won't pretend to be, but when someone tells me they have it, I don't view them as being at 100% physical health. I know plenty of people living with it who actually eat much better than "healthy" people just because they have to watch every bite, but the reality is still an outlier situation. The difference between a healthy person and someone with diabetes is that the former isn't going to pass out from a sugar crash even if they eat total garbage three days in a row—you know, like alternating between a bar of chocolate, a large order of McDonald's fries, and a glass of wine, three times a day... Anyway, 100 grams of meat is a bit meager if you ask me; you'd still be hungry. When I have guests over, I plan for at least 7 ounces per person, though we usually end up eating closer to 9 ounces... I'm not trying to rub your diabetes in your face, really, it's just that the statement "I have diabetes and I am healthy" doesn't quite make sense to me.

rustymoose54 said:Believe it or not, I’m a woman and I don't eat chocolate at all. I actually don't even like it.😎

The whole fries thing... you have to know what you're eating and how much. If you want fries, you really ought to estimate the starch-to-fat ratio in that serving and then factor that into your total daily intake. If someone were doing that every single day, they'd basically have to eat tiny amounts of everything else just to avoid gaining weight—which means missing out on actual nutrition. But there are people out there (women, 😁 ) who live exactly like that.

Maybe I should stop making such absolute statements—look where that gets me. Fine, fine... most women I know will eat more than one chocolate bar a month and not think twice about it, but it's true that some genuinely don't care for it. And regarding the fries point—that's exactly what I've been driving at this whole time. What are the odds that "Person X" eats ONLY that specific portion of fries for the entire day? They'll probably grab breakfast too... and the average adult isn't exactly used to surviving on a single serving of fried potatoes. Isn't it more normal (for a healthy person, mind you—I'm not talking about anyone managing diabetes, that's a different story and I don't have any experience there so I won't weigh in) for an adult to have soup, fish, and some steamed vegetables instead of a tiny pile of fries that hits the same calorie count? Even if you assume the meal is perfectly balanced to match the calories in those fries, the first option is still more varied, easier on my stomach, and so on...

Where on earth did you pick up all this nutrition advice?

Just from experience, really—it started back in my mom's kitchen and stuck once I moved out and started cooking for myself about ten years ago. Grains aren't just pure starch; they actually pack a decent amount of other nutrients too.
I highly doubt any woman only eats chocolate once a month... what I mean is, it's not an issue if you have it twice a week—as long as you actually BURN it off.

No, they gain weight because they eat more than they need (take it from a former chubby girl).

So, what’s the "ideal" serving size for fries? How many pieces before it counts as too much? Is it better to grab four turkey sliders with mashed potatoes or just a bowl of thick vegetable soup? But then again, who am I kidding... theories always have one fatal flaw—they never actually work in the real world...

Do you honestly believe there’s no such thing as "bad" food? That everything is equally fine? Like, a serving of fresh artisanal cheddar is just as good at killing hunger as a massive pile of McDonald's fries—which, let's be real, is what we've actually been arguing about this whole time, not boiled potatoes. As for rice... I much prefer it unprocessed. Same goes for sugar. It doesn't have to be all that fancy organic stuff or whatever—though, personally, I'll take whole grain over plain white flour any day of the week.

nimbledriver81 said:Digging myself out of this thread... 😁 Brown rice is slightly better than the glazed stuff. When anyone mentions rice, my mind goes straight to the glazed variety. 🙏liježeramenima: Again, vegetables beat grains any day.

Look, I get what you're saying. 😉 At least you aren't constantly preaching about diets. 😬

And here we go again. It's always the same. I eat everything—well, except for things I don't like eating. I. AM. NOT. OVERWEIGHT. I. KNOW. EXACTLY. WHAT. A. BALANCED. DIET. LOOKS. LIKE. 🙂 🙂
And stop hijacking the topic. 🙂

Hijacking? What are you talking about? Why is vegetable better than grain? Didn't we just agree that a diverse diet is the healthiest way to go? Are we going to gradually eliminate grains, meat, and who knows what else tomorrow until there's nothing left to follow that "diverse" plan? It's great that you're thin, really, but have you ever actually wondered why some people struggle with weight? (If you haven't experienced it yourself, surely you know someone who has). People gain weight because someone sold them a lie—exactly like how driftinggull13 is trying to sell me the idea that certain foods are somehow "bad." 😉
Besides, as I mentioned before, knowing what a balanced diet is and having the discipline to actually apply that knowledge to yourself are two completely different things. I'm convinced there are plenty of overweight people who are perfectly well-informed about nutrition but just lack the willpower to act on it. Then there are those who are incredibly fit without having a clue about food science. They either have a lightning-fast metabolism or they just intuitively eat the right stuff...

Wrong. Rice and potatoes fall under that same umbrella. Go eat some greens.

Ahem, excuse me, can I jump in here? I’m not entirely sure what your specialty is—since you claim nutrition is your field—but that last comment really undermined your credibility for me. There is a massive difference between whole-grain boiled rice and a greasy slice of pizza fried in God-knows-what kind of oil... but honestly, I trust my stomach more than I trust your theories. In the scenario described above, rice is clearly the better choice. Besides, I eat green vegetables with every single main meal.

The point is, even an educated person gets tired of hearing the same damn thing over and over. driftinggull13 and I have spent ages trying to explain this...

Exactly. Honestly, I've reached my limit with people just refusing to understand.

I mean, just look at the threads around here: "this diet," "that diet." It's always someone saying, "Hey, I need to drop 30 pounds in three days... recommend a diet to me."

Why do people gain weight in the first place? Because they actually believe there’s nothing bad in a basket of French fries. 😁 Why haven't I ever had to go on a diet in my life, even though I eat plenty and several times a day? Why do I have a girlfriend who looks incredible without ever dieting—she just eats whatever? People need to pay more attention to what they're putting into their bodies. Your stomach will tell you if something isn't working... whether it's through bloating, heartburn after a meal, or, in more extreme cases, the scale going up.

I think Mavrovič looks healthy enough...😉

I was just trying to say that eating bread is a matter of taste—and honestly, food grown without chemicals (like back after the war) wasn't necessarily any healthier since it carried all sorts of different pests...

obviously.

If people actually knew what was healthy for them, nutritionists wouldn't even exist.

Fine. Maybe not everyone knows. But some do. Most nutritionists deal with people who are either underweight or overweight—but those "middle ground" people who don't complain about anything? There isn't much to correct there. I mean, if someone looks healthy (weight is fine, not too much extra padding, they have stamina, etc.) and feels good—why fix their diet? It's just that nowadays, very few people actually feel healthy. If you ask me, I'd blame the lack of movement before the food itself.
Personally, I'd rather have steamed veggies and boiled potatoes than fries because I feel terrible after eating fried stuff... so I guess I intuitively figure out what my body doesn't like.

Carbs (like potatoes) are just as necessary as proteins and fats.

Just because we need carbs doesn't mean fries are the IDEAL carb source. For example, if I eat fish with boiled rice instead, my stomach feels better—so potatoes aren't the only way to get carbs, right?

There's no such thing as "bad" or "good" food, only excess.

Oh, please. There is bad food. Visually, nutritionally, and taste-wise—it's just awful. Take me, for instance; I wouldn't touch one of those greasy burgers at McDonald's even if they paid me. Not that I haven't tried one, but there's no way that's healthy. Sure, you won't drop dead from two burgers a month—which supports your point about moderation—but if "bad" food didn't exist, you could live on nothing but McDonald's and be fine. Since that's clearly not the case, look at that documentary, Super Size Me, where the guy eats nothing but McDonald's for a month and ends up sick with all sorts of things. My homemade burger doesn't need to be made of organic meat, but in this black-and-white world—where "black" is fast food and "white" is presumably organic—there is a healthy middle ground.

Look, I'm no nutritionist, but I think it's good to listen to the other side—the people who struggle a bit more with chemicals or diet. It gives you a better perspective so you can tell the wheat from the chaff, or the substance from the marketing.

absolutely!

driftinggull13, maybe "organic" was just marketing fluff for healthy food? I didn't say they were the exact same thing, so I don't get why you're twisting my words like that...
Fresh fish is still healthier than fries—even if those potatoes were organic and the fish came from some wild river somewhere.

On another note, I can't stand Mavrovič's bread—can barely finish a slice. My mom grew up in a rural farming town, and the idea of buying corn bread or some "whole grain" processed stuff never even crossed her mind. She had plenty of the real deal growing up.

I honestly don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand.

The secret to a good diet is moderation and variety, paired with physical activity.

Sure, variety is key, but quality matters just as much. For instance, I'll take a fresh steak over that stuff at Walmart that’s been sitting in a freezer, thawed, refrozen, and moved around five times... quality is everything. And it doesn't necessarily have to be "organic"—what does that term even mean lately? Or take making soup; there's a massive difference between cooking it from scratch and just opening a packet. Not all soups are created equal.
And look, driftinggull13, let's be real—most people participating here are just regular folks. They don't need a lecture full of high-level technical jargon just to figure out what's actually good for them.

nimbledriver81 said:It makes sense. Cooked food generally has less fat than anything deep-fried. But at the end of the day, too many calories is still too many calories—it doesn't matter where they come from. You could eat half of a Mavrovič's loaf—and yeah, people actually exist who eat those—and no matter how "healthy" you claim bread is, you're still going to gain weight...

P.S. You don't need to break anything down for me. Food is my line of work... 😬

I’m willing to bet you’ve got a few extra pounds on you... 😉 Usually, those armchair theorists who act like they've got it all figured out have zero clue when it comes to real-world application—I wouldn't be surprised if this argument follows that tired old logic... calories are just calories, right? They'll claim it’s all just "healthy energy" regardless of the source, acting like it makes no difference whether you chug a bottle of Coke or sit down to a decent meal of soup, fish, sides, salad, and dessert, provided the calorie count is the same. Because, according to them, a calorie is just a calorie...😁

The next day, it wasn't even remotely edible...

Are you actually certain you ate Mavrovič...

Maybe you should actually look into what you're eating and WHY...

My apologies if I just dumped a load of nonsense on you—like I said, this isn't my field of expertise. But since I’m healthy, fit, active, and my blood work is solid, I’d say—less talk, more action. I still maintain that a piece of Mavrovič's is healthier than some greasy corn dog covered in flour, judging by what I see around me... those who stick to cooked meals and light oils don't seem to struggle with weight, whereas the fast food crowd? Yeah, they usually do. So, calories matter. It's like people who write entire treatises on nutrition but don't follow a single rule and stay overweight anyway... just saying. Besides, beyond basic maintenance, the body burns energy through sports too, and when it comes to athletics, it's crucial

But fiber-rich foods (like fruit, veggies, or whole grains) slow down sugar absorption into the bloodstream...

so you don't get those massive crashes—like when you eat chocolate and get that sudden spike followed by a total wipeout. You'll actually get more sustained fuel from a plate of whole wheat pasta than you ever will from a candy bar.

I’m no expert here, so forgive me if I get the terminology wrong—definitely not my field. To me, "empty calories" are just things that offer zero nutritional value, like vitamins or minerals, and are basically just pure sugar. A croissant, for example, is the definition of an empty calorie in my book. And even then, assuming you actually burn it off... I don't know about you, but I spend 8 or 9 hours a day sitting at my desk at work, and if I wasn't biking around constantly, I honestly wouldn't have any clue where I'd burn all that energy.
The thing is, a croissant leaves you hungry again in an hour with barely any lasting fuel, whereas something like whole grains or maybe some Mavrovič's products will release energy much more slowly—and more steadily, without those massive spikes and crashes. As for the rest of your dilemmas, you'll probably have to find someone else to talk to about that...