I mean, seriously... why on earth would anyone choose to eat cookies and fried food for lunch? 😁 With anything fried, you can't even begin to calculate the calories accurately—unless, of course, you're standing there measuring exactly how much grease soaked into the crust...
Grace Fowler51 said:the whole trick is not eating more than 1000 calories for lunch
Look, I’m "normal," right? But honestly, if I dropped 1,000 calories on just one lunch, I’d basically turn into an elephant overnight...😕
I usually hover around 1,800 calories a day—split between three meals plus some fruit in between—and since I don't go overboard, it works for me. My weight has been totally steady for ages now, too.
But man, 1,000 calories for *one* lunch? Seriously?🙄
Yeah, okay, look—even if you didn't explicitly say proteins have zero calories, everything you wrote basically screamed that conclusion (just look at the quote), which is why I reacted the way I did...
Think about it: vitamins and minerals don't actually provide any energy—we just gotta eat them because our bodies can't make them from scratch. When we eat protein, the body breaks it down into amino acids; fats turn into glycerol and fatty acids, and carbs become glucose. If you aren't getting enough glucose, your body kicks into gear to keep things steady—like tapping into glycogen stores in the liver and all that. But if you’re straight-up starving and those glycogen reserves run dry? Your brain, which is basically addicted to glucose, has to switch over to an alternative fuel source—ketone bodies—which come from breaking down fatty acids and amino acids. Burning fatty acids gives you energy, but if you don't use it, it just gets stored as fat. It’s a much more complicated and drawn-out process than just storing excess glucose, which is why you claimed carbs make it "easier" to pack on the pounds. On the flip side, since we can actually get energy by burning fatty acids, we can totally lean out through physical activity (melting away that fat 😁)...
I don’t even know what you’re getting at here—you’re just assuming you’re allergic to some random additives they toss into soaps and detergents. My first point was more about the semantics of it all, honestly... You used the word "chemicals" like it's some scary boogeyman when you're talking about those extra ingredients, but let's be real: soap itself is literally created through a chemical reaction between fatty acids (which is why I brought up lard, by the way) and something like lye—say, sodium or potassium hydroxide. NaOH is a chemical *par excellence*, if we're being technical...
But my second comment was actually the important part—go get tested to find out what you're actually reacting to (assuming it really is an allergy). Seriously, knowing the specifics could make your life a whole lot easier.
sorry if I’m totally going off on a tangent here, but soap—whether you’re talking about that "old school" stuff made from rendered lard and lye or some "modern" version—is still just a chemical.
honestly, it’d be a smart move to go get tested so you actually know what you’re allergic to...
The spectrum from Sun Microsystems covers the whole damn thing—ultraviolet, visible, and infrared. It’s just a straight line where the wavelength keeps climbing (while the energy just tanks)... so when you mentioned the solar spectrum, you were really just talking about sunlight, you know? Like, those specific visible rays
copperridge912 said:But seriously, what even is "light"? I mean, come on—middle school science class... you learn that sunlight is just a spectrum of colors, right? A big long list of all the rainbow shades...
Look, light is basically just one slice of the whole solar spectrum. Those UV rays everyone talks about? You can't even see them. They’ve got a way higher frequency—which means more energy—than the stuff we actually see, and that's why they mess with your skin and cause tanning... or burns, if you aren't careful.
Wait, really? Could you actually dive a bit deeper into those studies? I’m always super curious about what people are actually talking about when they start throwing around the word "toxins"... like, what does that even mean in this context?
So, what makes you think you're "full of toxins" anyway? Did you fall down some weird rabbit hole online, or is it just a gut feeling?
Look, if you actually want to be healthy, just stick to the basics—drink enough water (like, at least 60 ounces a day), eat whatever your nutritionist tells you to, and get some decent exercise in... nothing crazy, just move.
Or, hey, you could always just keep reading those pseudoscience self-help books, convince yourself you're doing something productive, and suddenly that whole "toxic" feeling will just vanish into thin air. 🙂
placidjackal97 said:so much for rustymoose54 claiming she was just representing the idea that you shouldn't carry baggage from one thread over to another... 😎
Quote me where I'm actually giving ADVICE on that thread, otherwise just shut it.
what, you think you've got some kind of exclusive permit to dump your garbage all over this forum?
1. LIVER 2. Resistance. A lack of emotional boundaries. 3. I flow effortlessly through life's river with every experience I encounter. Everything is okay.
so, yeah... since placidjackal9 is already out here handing out life lessons—drawing from her supposedly massive well of wisdom or whatever—it’s just wild to me how she completely missed this part while swearing by that whole philosophy... 😁