The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
Quinnstinct wrote: »I find it interesting the CICO people who think eating Twinkies within their calorie goals are completely ignoring long term health effects. What we eat directly relates to gut health and overall wellness. Just because you weigh less doesn't mean you are healthier.So the question has been asked a million times, maybe you will be the one to finally answer it! Please explain how one item in an overall "good" day, like a Twinkie, ruins your health. Yesterday I ate eggs, whole grain bread, chicken breast, rice and vegetables. Last night my husband took me out for frozen yogurt. Please tell me how the frozen yogurt ruined the effects of all those other foods I ate.Quinnstinct wrote: »Read more carefully, I'm talking about people who use extreme examples of CICO like eating 1200 calories of twinkies.Quinnstinct wrote: »If anyone would like to pose a well constructed question I'm happy to put together a thorough search of the medical literature.
First of all, no one needs to "read more carefully." You didn't mention extremity.
Second of all, I guess I'm to take it that you won't be answering the question then, blaming it on other people's poorly constructed questions. Please let me know what it is in my question that confuses you.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
I didn't ask you to define clean eating. I asked you to define anti-clean eating. Although it would be hard to do one without the other, I'm sure you're up for the challenge.0 -
I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.
I believe a moderator asked that this nonsense be dropped and to please stay on topic.0 -
I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.
Do you actually think that there's some secret IIFYM society that emails each other these talking points?0 -
shaynataggart wrote: »Both will lose weight. A deficit is still a deficit. The quality of the food will impact each on a cellular level. Obviously the non clean eater will be filling their body with much more artificial ingredients.
Can you tell me why it's bad to ingest artificial ingredients? And what affect they have on a cellular level?0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
That's the one I was trying to quote/reply to! What a revelation to find that the repeated terms and methods I see in these threads actually has a source and an outline. It's like cult follower training! Even so, it was pretty educational as far as teaching effective ways to debate.
I wouldn't make too much of it. I'd never seen that page before, and "strawman" is a common term, especially but not only on the internet. The idea that it comes from that page (doesn't when I use it) seems far-fetched to me.
The more important question is if it's actually applicable or not when the accusation is leveled. That's where logic should be beneficial.
That nonsense about 100% cake diets were immediately brought up here despite how person B is defined explains quite well why it's a common accusation in "clean eating" discussions.
I would REALLY like to have a discussion of what's wrong with eating like person B not based on complete made up nonsense about 100% cake diets or the like, because (1) I don't think there is anything wrong with it; and (2) I think essentially everyone who claims to be a "clean" eater ALSO eats that way. I know lots of paleo eaters offline (through CF), and they generally do. They just don't pretend otherwise, like some of the holy than thou types on MFP.0 -
BTW, I said in my post that more research was needed, and didn't say anything about completely eliminating food types!
We definitely don't know enough about gut bacteria to effectively develop a weight loss program solely on that. My point was just there is (scientific, research-backed) evidence suggesting that WHAT (not just HOW MUCH) you eat might make a difference in weight loss, and definitely does in overall health and well-being.
I think (hope) that most people intuitively know that it's probably better for you to drink OJ than soda, even though both of them can make you fat if you overdo it. So that's why I said I hedge my bets by trying to focus on minimally-processed foods that are full of all kinds of beneficial compounds while not letting that interfere with me living my life and eating foods I enjoy.
BUT that's not relevant to the thread. Dieter B eats nutritious foods and still enjoys treats. He's not eating a diet comprised only of highly processed, sugary food.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
That's the one I was trying to quote/reply to! What a revelation to find that the repeated terms and methods I see in these threads actually has a source and an outline. It's like cult follower training! Even so, it was pretty educational as far as teaching effective ways to debate.
Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
This is rich, from you.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
Uh, the only efforts to score points I've seen in this discussions are those who have refused to address the actual differences outlined between persons A and B and who made up stuff about 100% twinkie and chips diets or the like.
I am always open for a real discussion and never get my questions answered seriously by the "clean" eating crowd. I'm also just generally tired of "clean" eaters pretending to believe--when they know it's false--that people who dislike the term and concept of "clean" eating don't know or care about nutrition.
THAT'S exactly what prevents real discussion here.
If you want to talk, I'd love to.0 -
shaynataggart wrote: »Both will lose weight. A deficit is still a deficit. The quality of the food will impact each on a cellular level. Obviously the non clean eater will be filling their body with much more artificial ingredients.
Can you tell me why it's bad to ingest artificial ingredients? And what affect they have on a cellular level?I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.
Do you actually think that there's some secret IIFYM society that emails each other these talking points?
IIFYM.com isn't really secret and they sent me an email that read:
Can Science defend IIFYM on Facebook?
It is time the facebook trolls are shown how predictable & pathetic they have become!!
Can science defend IIFYM, or must we fight troll fire with troll fire?
Check out this new areticle written by Saud Skillz on how exactly the facebook trolls opperate and how we can shut them down in just a few short steps.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
Click here to read the article now!
Copyright © 2015 Collova Media Inc, All rights reserved.
The above was pasted directly into this post from the email, enjoy the creative spelling
0 -
KrissyRawrz wrote: »I like to be a happy medium and eat a "normal" person diet with a deficit. However, I have had a friend who ate pure junk, seriously, only take outs for every meal, including breakfast. And they still managed to lose 35kg on their deficit. However, they stopped dead in their tracks then and I think if they switched to clean eating they would have been able to lose a lot more. So I guess it depends how your body reacts to it?
I think it's this idea that one must eat horribly or eat "clean" (unlike you and I, I guess) that is odd.
I also know someone who lost a bunch of weight simply eating less at the fast food restaurants she primarily frequented. She was a really smart person (not that that's necessarily relevant) and had various issues with food and told me at the time that she wanted to lose but wasn't ready to change her diet or start cooking. That was during my "natural" phase and I was secretly disapproving, but watching her was really educational--she did lose a bunch and gradually also start changing her diet, as eating less in the way of fast food stopped feeling satisfying and she started feeling ready to introduce cooking, which she did really gradually. Ultimately she still ate quite differently than I did, but a pretty normal diet. I think these kinds of gradual changes are common, as people work through what is satiating for them, and can be a lot more healthy than getting problematic associations between eating in a particular way and "being good."
It's SO easy to get neurotic about food that I dislike it when people encourage it. That doesn't mean that it's bad to decide to eat in a particular way that makes it easier for yourself--I care deeply about nutrition and have my own ideas of what's healthy (that I don't think line up well with "eating clean" which I think can often not be about eating healthy at all, but a quasi religious or fear of impurity thing), but to proclaim that person B can't be healthy or is necessarily less healthy than person A seems messed up, and is what I think this discussion is trying to get at.0 -
shaynataggart wrote: »Both will lose weight. A deficit is still a deficit. The quality of the food will impact each on a cellular level. Obviously the non clean eater will be filling their body with much more artificial ingredients.
Can you tell me why it's bad to ingest artificial ingredients? And what affect they have on a cellular level?I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.
Do you actually think that there's some secret IIFYM society that emails each other these talking points?
IIFYM.com isn't really secret and they sent me an email that read:
Can Science defend IIFYM on Facebook?
It is time the facebook trolls are shown how predictable & pathetic they have become!!
Can science defend IIFYM, or must we fight troll fire with troll fire?
Check out this new areticle written by Saud Skillz on how exactly the facebook trolls opperate and how we can shut them down in just a few short steps.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
Click here to read the article now!
Copyright © 2015 Collova Media Inc, All rights reserved.
The above was pasted directly into this post from the email, enjoy the creative spelling
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater? What negative affect do artificial ingredients have on the body on a cellular level?0 -
shaynataggart wrote: »Both will lose weight. A deficit is still a deficit. The quality of the food will impact each on a cellular level. Obviously the non clean eater will be filling their body with much more artificial ingredients.
Can you tell me why it's bad to ingest artificial ingredients? And what affect they have on a cellular level?I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.
Do you actually think that there's some secret IIFYM society that emails each other these talking points?
IIFYM.com isn't really secret and they sent me an email that read:
Can Science defend IIFYM on Facebook?
It is time the facebook trolls are shown how predictable & pathetic they have become!!
Can science defend IIFYM, or must we fight troll fire with troll fire?
Check out this new areticle written by Saud Skillz on how exactly the facebook trolls opperate and how we can shut them down in just a few short steps.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
Click here to read the article now!
Copyright © 2015 Collova Media Inc, All rights reserved.
The above was pasted directly into this post from the email, enjoy the creative spelling
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater? What negative affect do artificial ingredients have on the body on a cellular level?
You can click on flag and simply report him for going off-topic without flagging him. I don't think he or anyone else is here is ever going to answer this question!0 -
shaynataggart wrote: »Both will lose weight. A deficit is still a deficit. The quality of the food will impact each on a cellular level. Obviously the non clean eater will be filling their body with much more artificial ingredients.
Can you tell me why it's bad to ingest artificial ingredients? And what affect they have on a cellular level?I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.
Do you actually think that there's some secret IIFYM society that emails each other these talking points?
IIFYM.com isn't really secret and they sent me an email that read:
Can Science defend IIFYM on Facebook?
It is time the facebook trolls are shown how predictable & pathetic they have become!!
Can science defend IIFYM, or must we fight troll fire with troll fire?
Check out this new areticle written by Saud Skillz on how exactly the facebook trolls opperate and how we can shut them down in just a few short steps.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
Click here to read the article now!
Copyright © 2015 Collova Media Inc, All rights reserved.
The above was pasted directly into this post from the email, enjoy the creative spelling
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater? What negative affect do artificial ingredients have on the body on a cellular level?
I have yet to see a "clean" eater anywhere be able to answer this question. I have also never seen an "anti-clean" person advocate eating only non-nutrient dense food. My guess is a redirection is soon to come.0 -
I think (hope) that most people intuitively know that it's probably better for you to drink OJ than soda, even though both of them can make you fat if you overdo it.
Sure--arguably this can make OJ more apt to be overeaten by people, like those here, trying to watch their weight.
I personally like OJ okay (I don't like any sugary sodas other than an occasional ginger ale), but never drink it OR other drinks with calories since I don't find them satisfying. I MUCH prefer fruit itself, and don't get the obsession with juicing (I know that's not what you were referring to).
I don't think people who say "clean" eating isn't necessary are recommending drinking lots of soda, but although it seems like a waste of calories to me I can see that someone might really really like it, although I don't, and think it's worth including a can on occasion (or even daily) vs. some other indulgence.
OJ is something that kind of is an indulgence but people often don't see as such (although yes it has more nutrients, at least).0 -
I've had an obscene amount of Oreos today. I recognize this. Life threw me a curveball last week, and it's been difficult to jump back on the macro counting wagon, so I've been concentrating on hitting my calories, or, barring that, at least maintenance.
It's absurd to suggest that my life is going to be either less healthy over the grand scheme of things or shorter because I've had a day filled with Oreos.
Or, how about my aunt? My aunt ate "clean" by choice, and was super not judgey about it, and for a couple of years and got into exercising. Last year, she died of non-smoking lung cancer, and had gone from diagnosis to death in like 6 months. I've seen people who would suggest, and some are my own family members, that if she had just been trying harder, the result would have been different. I, frankly, find this insulting.
It is possible to be an "unhealthy" clean eater and it's possible to be a "healthy" dirty eater.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »The gut microbiome stuff is super interesting. Probably a good idea to actually do the crossover design and see over time if you get a difference, perhaps measuring inflammation levels along the way.
As a tangent, I agree. This is an area of study that I've started following closely. I think that your gut flora has a lot more to do with weight/food preferences/metabolism/cravings and even immune system health than we ever suspected.
Have there been studies where food preferences/cravings/metabolism changed with a shift in gut flora? I need to start following this more myself.
Not as such...I think it's just conjecture at this point. But the studies that have been done do show that what you eat/drink does change the bacteria in your gut. You can kill off entire colonies and replace them with new ones according to whether you eat more meat or use artificial sweeteners. The implications of that have not yet been tested, but with the advent of poop transplants for Crohn's and IBS, I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »The gut microbiome stuff is super interesting. Probably a good idea to actually do the crossover design and see over time if you get a difference, perhaps measuring inflammation levels along the way.
As a tangent, I agree. This is an area of study that I've started following closely. I think that your gut flora has a lot more to do with weight/food preferences/metabolism/cravings and even immune system health than we ever suspected.
Have there been studies where food preferences/cravings/metabolism changed with a shift in gut flora? I need to start following this more myself.
Not as such...I think it's just conjecture at this point. But the studies that have been done do show that what you eat/drink does change the bacteria in your gut. You can kill off entire colonies and replace them with new ones according to whether you eat more meat or use artificial sweeteners. The implications of that have not yet been tested, but with the advent of poop transplants for Crohn's and IBS, I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg.
I remember reading that poop transplants affect weight in lab rats. I actually would do it if it's shown to be effective.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »The gut microbiome stuff is super interesting. Probably a good idea to actually do the crossover design and see over time if you get a difference, perhaps measuring inflammation levels along the way.
As a tangent, I agree. This is an area of study that I've started following closely. I think that your gut flora has a lot more to do with weight/food preferences/metabolism/cravings and even immune system health than we ever suspected.
Have there been studies where food preferences/cravings/metabolism changed with a shift in gut flora? I need to start following this more myself.
Not as such...I think it's just conjecture at this point. But the studies that have been done do show that what you eat/drink does change the bacteria in your gut. You can kill off entire colonies and replace them with new ones according to whether you eat more meat or use artificial sweeteners. The implications of that have not yet been tested, but with the advent of poop transplants for Crohn's and IBS, I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg.
I remember reading that poop transplants affect weight in lab rats. I actually would do it if it's shown to be effective.
There's some DIY instructions online if you wanna give it a try
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »The gut microbiome stuff is super interesting. Probably a good idea to actually do the crossover design and see over time if you get a difference, perhaps measuring inflammation levels along the way.
As a tangent, I agree. This is an area of study that I've started following closely. I think that your gut flora has a lot more to do with weight/food preferences/metabolism/cravings and even immune system health than we ever suspected.
Have there been studies where food preferences/cravings/metabolism changed with a shift in gut flora? I need to start following this more myself.
Not as such...I think it's just conjecture at this point. But the studies that have been done do show that what you eat/drink does change the bacteria in your gut. You can kill off entire colonies and replace them with new ones according to whether you eat more meat or use artificial sweeteners. The implications of that have not yet been tested, but with the advent of poop transplants for Crohn's and IBS, I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg.
I remember reading that poop transplants affect weight in lab rats. I actually would do it if it's shown to be effective.
There's some DIY instructions online if you wanna give it a try
LOL!!! Oh my gosh! Can you imagine asking for somebody's poop for you to ingest?
Well I guess there is already a community devoted to that, lol.
0 -
I've had an obscene amount of Oreos today. I recognize this. Life threw me a curveball last week, and it's been difficult to jump back on the macro counting wagon, so I've been concentrating on hitting my calories, or, barring that, at least maintenance.
It's absurd to suggest that my life is going to be either less healthy over the grand scheme of things or shorter because I've had a day filled with Oreos.
Or, how about my aunt? My aunt ate "clean" by choice, and was super not judgey about it, and for a couple of years and got into exercising. Last year, she died of non-smoking lung cancer, and had gone from diagnosis to death in like 6 months. I've seen people who would suggest, and some are my own family members, that if she had just been trying harder, the result would have been different. I, frankly, find this insulting.
It is possible to be an "unhealthy" clean eater and it's possible to be a "healthy" dirty eater.
Sorry about your aunt. And the judgy family members.
That thinking that you could have done something better/different to prevent is just so horribly insidious and abundant these days. It's hurtful, and it's wrong.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
That's the one I was trying to quote/reply to! What a revelation to find that the repeated terms and methods I see in these threads actually has a source and an outline. It's like cult follower training! Even so, it was pretty educational as far as teaching effective ways to debate.
I wouldn't make too much of it. I'd never seen that page before, and "strawman" is a common term, especially but not only on the internet. The idea that it comes from that page (doesn't when I use it) seems far-fetched to me.
The more important question is if it's actually applicable or not when the accusation is leveled. That's where logic should be beneficial.
That nonsense about 100% cake diets were immediately brought up here despite how person B is defined explains quite well why it's a common accusation in "clean eating" discussions.
I would REALLY like to have a discussion of what's wrong with eating like person B not based on complete made up nonsense about 100% cake diets or the like, because (1) I don't think there is anything wrong with it; and (2) I think essentially everyone who claims to be a "clean" eater ALSO eats that way. I know lots of Paleo eaters offline (through CF), and they generally do. They just don't pretend otherwise, like some of the holy than thou types on MFP.
Most of the people I know who eat "clean" or Paleo, also sometimes eat food in the non-clean (wide definition) category and don't feel guilty about it or off-plan about it too much, unless they go over in calories. In fact, when my doctor suggested I try the Paleo route she mentioned "3 cheat-meals per week" which I understand to mean eating off-plan. (and within your caloric goal)
I don't understand why people jump to the "if you eat Twinkies 100% of the time" argument because who does that for real? Even the folks who argue to the death about "I can eat whatever I want as long as I stay in my calorie goals" eat "clean" or healthy much of the time (no I'm not posting a study to define what I mean by clean or healthy).
I also don't understand why people get so defensive when someone mentions Paleo or "clean" eating, unless those people are making judgments or accusations of others. It is similar to the "why do people get so angry with vegans" argument. Yes, I use a Paleo template for eating. No I don't care how the rest of you eat nor do I have an opinion of whether you are eating right or wrong. We are all accomplishing the same goal (movement toward or maintaining ideal weight) in different ways.
So the OP answer would still be "C", and everyone needs to chill about judging whether they go that route via Person A or Person B, as long as they get there. Comparing personal experiences between A and B's ways of staying within their calories would be a good discussion, without all the Judgy McJudgersons. (If you scan through the thread, there are people who lost their weight both ways and feel very passionate about that. Good for them/us!)0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I've had an obscene amount of Oreos today. I recognize this. Life threw me a curveball last week, and it's been difficult to jump back on the macro counting wagon, so I've been concentrating on hitting my calories, or, barring that, at least maintenance.
It's absurd to suggest that my life is going to be either less healthy over the grand scheme of things or shorter because I've had a day filled with Oreos.
Or, how about my aunt? My aunt ate "clean" by choice, and was super not judgey about it, and for a couple of years and got into exercising. Last year, she died of non-smoking lung cancer, and had gone from diagnosis to death in like 6 months. I've seen people who would suggest, and some are my own family members, that if she had just been trying harder, the result would have been different. I, frankly, find this insulting.
It is possible to be an "unhealthy" clean eater and it's possible to be a "healthy" dirty eater.
Sorry about your aunt. And the judgy family members.
That thinking that you could have done something better/different to prevent is just so horribly insidious and abundant these days. It's hurtful, and it's wrong.
Thanks.
The "food as medicine" crowd bothers me to no end because they ignore flat out that the majority of times, it actually doesn't work. Sometimes you just got to accept that bad things happen and you get unlucky - and it sucks, but it's reality.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I've had an obscene amount of Oreos today. I recognize this. Life threw me a curveball last week, and it's been difficult to jump back on the macro counting wagon, so I've been concentrating on hitting my calories, or, barring that, at least maintenance.
It's absurd to suggest that my life is going to be either less healthy over the grand scheme of things or shorter because I've had a day filled with Oreos.
Or, how about my aunt? My aunt ate "clean" by choice, and was super not judgey about it, and for a couple of years and got into exercising. Last year, she died of non-smoking lung cancer, and had gone from diagnosis to death in like 6 months. I've seen people who would suggest, and some are my own family members, that if she had just been trying harder, the result would have been different. I, frankly, find this insulting.
It is possible to be an "unhealthy" clean eater and it's possible to be a "healthy" dirty eater.
Sorry about your aunt. And the judgy family members.
That thinking that you could have done something better/different to prevent is just so horribly insidious and abundant these days. It's hurtful, and it's wrong.
Totally agree.
I know people who think those with cancer should just try changing their diet before "resorting" to medical treatment. Ridiculous, dangerous, ignorant.0 -
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
0 -
shaynataggart wrote: »Both will lose weight. A deficit is still a deficit. The quality of the food will impact each on a cellular level. Obviously the non clean eater will be filling their body with much more artificial ingredients.
Can you tell me why it's bad to ingest artificial ingredients? And what affect they have on a cellular level?I think the person eating "clean" may lose 3 to 5 lbs. more because processed food has more sodium which causes water retention; however, I don't think the difference would be significant overall, except nutritionally. Regarding "Twinkie" diet, I haven't seen that. However, working in a college environment, I see young women drink Starbucks fancy coffees and drinks and eat pastries, but talk about how they won't eat anything for the rest of the day because those are all the calories they're allowed. So, there are people who will eat/drink 1200-1500 calories a day in nonnutritious foods.
You're talking about people you see in your school, not MFP. Also remember you are going what a random statement they make. We are talking about the people here on MFP that people are claiming eat 1200 calories in Twinkies. Where are they? Of course there are people in this world that have all kind of days.There are people that will eat a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on a bagel for breakfast, a 20 oz Pepsi and a Boston cream donut for breakfast or a dinner that was Chinese food, pizza and McDonald's. I know that because that's what I used to do in my fat days. But that doesn't mean that is done here.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.
Listen, per my clean eating talking points that the Czar of Clean Eating emailed to all of his subjects, I am not supposed to get duped into defining clean eating.
You are doing the things you are saying others do. The same things in that article.
And ignoring the fact that not everyone follows everything off that site as you claim.
I never stated that everyone followed the site. I'm just saying it would be interesting to do a word usage summary for the term "straw man" on MFP before and after that IIFYM site emailed that debate link and study the results.
Do you actually think that there's some secret IIFYM society that emails each other these talking points?
IIFYM.com isn't really secret and they sent me an email that read:
Can Science defend IIFYM on Facebook?
It is time the facebook trolls are shown how predictable & pathetic they have become!!
Can science defend IIFYM, or must we fight troll fire with troll fire?
Check out this new areticle written by Saud Skillz on how exactly the facebook trolls opperate and how we can shut them down in just a few short steps.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
Click here to read the article now!
Copyright © 2015 Collova Media Inc, All rights reserved.
The above was pasted directly into this post from the email, enjoy the creative spelling
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater? What negative affect do artificial ingredients have on the body on a cellular level?
You can click on flag and simply report him for going off-topic without flagging him. I don't think he or anyone else is here is ever going to answer this question!
Thank you, Miss Sunshine.0 -
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto out for you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Worthwhile. That is a great word.0 -
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Oh. So it sounds like you eat a variety of whole foods (maybe 80%?) to meet your macro/micro nutrient goals and then some convenience foods (20%?) to fill in the rest of your diet?
I see.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions