So you draw a distinction between attacking an idea (OK) vs attacking a person (wrong) and then give as an example of what not to do as the use of the term "carb addict"... is someone being personally accused of being a carb addict? Where?? because I would also report that post as wrong. Or are you talking about folks discussing the idea of carbs being addictive... because surely that falls under your "OK to do" heading?NewdestinyX said:I haven't missed anything. I tell what works about my choices all the time here and I never denegrate another person's choice. I DO however, and will continue, to challenge 'ideas' about regimens and what science says about the different regimens. A forum is a place for exchange and 'comparison' of ideas. Ideas are fair game. Judging 'people' for their choices and telling them they are 'hurting themselves' for choosing a certain way is wrong. Terms like 'addicted to carbs' and characterizing carbs themselves as 'inherently addictive' abound all over this and other forums. That's a totally judgmental statement (and scientifically inaccurate to boot) and is 'liberally used' at this and other D forums. Just search for the words 'carb' and 'addict' or 'addictive' and you'll read post after post of this 'judging tone' I refer to.
For myself I am able to promote what works for me without constantly comparing it to other approaches or categorizing people by using divisive terms like "low carbers".
---
If you must insist on categories you might refer to Diabetes UK own guidelines...
I believe they are calling you a "low carber"Charity Diabetes UK provides the following brackets for daily carbohydrate intakes. A research study in 2008[7] used the following brackets to categorise daily carbohydrate intake:
Moderate carbohydrate: 130 to 225g of carbs
Low carbohydrate: under 130g of carbs
Very low carbohydrate: under 30g of carbs