What is "woo"
Replies
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
And if you don't know what anti-ontological is, you should feel bad!
(Because if you can dish it, you can take it
)
I don't mind good-natured ribbing about things one bit, btw, y'all. I enjoy it. I do get irritated if people get off on being too mean-spirited, but it is the internet, so that's the way it goes. Thick skin and all that.0 -
If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I didn't say I was trying to define woo.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »If it was meant to inform, they'd use informative words like dangerous, harmful or misleading. They don't use those words.
Personally if I'm going to describe something as woo, using one of those alternatives would lend it far more credence than it deserves.
Where something is unsubstantiated bollocks nonsense then sometimes ridiculing the information is an entirely appropriate response.
When discussing topics, I like to remain civil and void the use of poorly understood and very subjective words. Objective words get the point across without unnecessary belittling of people's legitimate questions.
You'll note that I referred to ridiculing the information, not the individual.
What I have noted is that frequently sticking with a technical explanation of how something works is a fairly reliable method to end up attacked.
Sometimes people merely poison the well...
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
I didn't say I was trying to define woo.
I didn't say you were trying to define woo.
It's still a weak argument, and you should feel bad.
0 -
I am not much in to using the latest buzz words but if someone else wants to use them that doesn't concern me.
However I do feel at times that there are some users here that uses them as a way to elevate themselves by putting others down and making them feel like idiots.
Notice people...I said SOME users...0 -
If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is wrong is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same "supportive" posters would blithely chirp "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".0 -
If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing is a complete waste of money and will do nothing to help them reach their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Only its not being said like that.
It's been said like that hundreds, if not thousands, of times. After months of addressing the same issues over and over, the topics get labeled as woo because all of the coddling answers were used up long ago.0 -
If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?0 -
I thought "woo" was a contraction of "woo-woo" - a belief in the supernatural / occult (like when you are telling a ghost story and say "wooooo") which then morphed into a general term for a belief which is not supported by any kind of meaningful evidence.
Like other users I have been using the term "woo" (actually for me I use "woo woo") for years. However, I have been using it much less in recent times as I do think it now has a derogatory / dismissive association (perhaps unfairly.)
Do some people use it with the intention to personally insult others on the sly? I'm sure they do. Is that how it is used by everyone or the majority of users. Of that I am much less certain and I doubt it.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There is a difference in a medically prescribed and supervised diet and the usual VLCDs seen on MFP that are completely self administered, usually based on scientifically devoid reasoning, and are inherently dangerous.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »There is a difference in a medically prescribed and supervised diet and the usual VLCDs seen on MFP that are completely self administered, usually based on scientifically devoid reasoning, and are inherently dangerous.
e.g., "Military Diet", "General Motors Diet", "Cabbage Soup Diet", etc., etc.
Yes, I stand by my statement.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »There is a difference in a medically prescribed and supervised diet and the usual VLCDs seen on MFP that are completely self administered, usually based on scientifically devoid reasoning, and are inherently dangerous.
e.g., "Military Diet", "General Motors Diet", "Cabbage Soup Diet", etc., etc.
Yes, I stand by my statement.
You left out the plethora of "cleanse" and "detox" VLCDs that populate these forums.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »There is a difference in a medically prescribed and supervised diet and the usual VLCDs seen on MFP that are completely self administered, usually based on scientifically devoid reasoning, and are inherently dangerous.
e.g., "Military Diet", "General Motors Diet", "Cabbage Soup Diet", etc., etc.
Yes, I stand by my statement.
You left out the plethora of "cleanse" and "detox" VLCDs that populate these forums.
Ah, yes. More woo.0 -
0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There are even valid non-medical reasons for VLCDs. I'm just surprised that this is in the "woo" bucket. I thought "woo" was about magical thinking that didn't work not things that are evidence-based and medically relevant.
And while cabbage soup diets might not be healthy, they aren't the definition of VLCDs nor are all VLCDs bad. There is no need to group all VLCDs together.
0 -
Do some people use it with the intention to personally insult others on the sly? I'm sure they do. Is that how it is used by everyone or the majority of users. Of that I am much less certain and I doubt it.
People in this thread have said that even if you say woo without the intent to mock that you are wrong and you did do it with a mean spirited intent to mock.
I will have to read back but that would be saying everyone is lying when they say they are not using it with ill intent. I really doubt that and it would be impossible to substantiate anyway.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Do some people use it with the intention to personally insult others on the sly? I'm sure they do. Is that how it is used by everyone or the majority of users. Of that I am much less certain and I doubt it.
People in this thread have said that even if you say woo without the intent to mock that you are wrong and you did do it with a mean spirited intent to mock.
I will have to read back but that would be saying everyone is lying when they say they are not using it with ill intent. I really doubt that and it would be impossible to substantiate anyway.
I said I didn't use it to mock and was clearly told I was wrong. I guess I am so naturally mean spirited that I wasn't even aware of it.
Nah, you're good.
I think the exchange could be interpreted another way to be fair to the other poster - that's the problem with trying to determine intent over the interweb - so many shadows.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Do some people use it with the intention to personally insult others on the sly? I'm sure they do. Is that how it is used by everyone or the majority of users. Of that I am much less certain and I doubt it.
People in this thread have said that even if you say woo without the intent to mock that you are wrong and you did do it with a mean spirited intent to mock.
I will have to read back but that would be saying everyone is lying when they say they are not using it with ill intent. I really doubt that and it would be impossible to substantiate anyway.
I said I didn't use it to mock and was clearly told I was wrong. I guess I am so naturally mean spirited that I wasn't even aware of it.
Nah, you're good.
I think the exchange could be interpreted another way to be fair to the other poster - that's the problem with trying to determine intent over the interweb - so many shadows.
Nah, I'm just a horrible person.
No one should think otherwise. This site has made the point to call me out personally for being unhelpful in an official capacity and then being told about my mean spiritedness. Don't worry about it though. Horrible people like myself deserve what they get and deserve no benefit of the doubt.
Eh? You're none of those things as far as I can see.
I don't know you personally but I think I may have said before that I have read a lot of your posts and I don't see malice or ill intent in them. Obviously your delivery isn't as delightful as mine...but then no one can be
You stay you.0 -
Do some people use it with the intention to personally insult others on the sly? I'm sure they do. Is that how it is used by everyone or the majority of users. Of that I am much less certain and I doubt it.
People in this thread have said that even if you say woo without the intent to mock that you are wrong and you did do it with a mean spirited intent to mock.
I will have to read back but that would be saying everyone is lying when they say they are not using it with ill intent. I really doubt that and it would be impossible to substantiate anyway.
I said I didn't use it to mock and was clearly told I was wrong. I guess I am so naturally mean spirited that I wasn't even aware of it.
Nah, you're good.
I think the exchange could be interpreted another way to be fair to the other poster - that's the problem with trying to determine intent over the interweb - so many shadows.
Nah, I'm just a horrible person.
No one should think otherwise. This site has made the point to call me out personally for being unhelpful in an official capacity and then being told about my mean spiritedness. Don't worry about it though. Horrible people like myself deserve what they get and deserve no benefit of the doubt.
Congratulations. You figured it out much faster than most here.
Welcome to the club. You should receive your membership card, window sticker, and discount booklet in 2-4 weeks.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There are even valid non-medical reasons for VLCDs. I'm just surprised that this is in the "woo" bucket. I thought "woo" was about magical thinking that didn't work not things that are evidence-based and medically relevant.
And while cabbage soup diets might not be healthy, they aren't the definition of VLCDs nor are all VLCDs bad. There is no need to group all VLCDs together.
Regardless of the reason, promotion of VLCD is a violation of ToS on this site anyway, so the point is rather moot.
However, unless medically supervised, I would question your comment that not all VLCDs are bad. Consuming too few calories is harmful to the body in any number of ways that have been discussed in numerous threads.
Personally, when I've used the term 'woo', it's only been in reference to ridiculous pitch schemes like raspberry ketones, 21 day fix, Contrave, Isagenix, etc, etc. As I defined upthread, I used the term to mean, as defined by the MacMillan Dictionary: to try to persuade people to support you or to buy something from you, especially by saying and doing nice things. It's a valid definition of the term, and makes sense to use it to refer to any of these common schemes.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »If you believe in woo, you are wrong and you should feel bad.
But some posters believe it's much more comforting to say "I'm sure your 30-day, 47-calorie saltine and lemon water detox will work great, we're all different!!1! Go YOU!!!111!!!", rather than pointing out that there's no need to go to such extremes and there are much healthier options which would be far more effective. After all, you could make somebody uncomfortable by pointing out that what they're doing isn't compatible with their goals - and feelz are apparently more important than goals to some.
Right? How does one think it is more helpful to fill their head with more nonsense rather than give them info they can use? I will never understand this.
VLCDs and some of the other ridiculous things people consider doing for weight loss (prolonged fasts, etc.) have known, documented deleterious effects upon one's health - yet people will coddle these ideas and feel that telling a poster that doing those things is being "unsupportive" and "mean". OTOH, nicotine is scientifically proven to blunt the appetite and increase the metabolism, but I'd be willing to bet that if somebody posted a thread saying "I'm going to start smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to lose weight!", they'd be roundly shouted down, told how unhealthy and dangerous smoking is, etc. What's the difference? Either way you're doing something stupid that you shouldn't be doing which is going to adversely affect your health - and nicotine is far more effective than any of Dr. Oz's "miracle fat blasters" that we see proposed/discussed in threads here multiple times every day. I wonder if these same posters would blithely say "I've never tried it, but good luck on your new routine, I'm sure you'll see great results! Go you, smoke 'em up!".
VLCDs are now in the "woo" bucket?
Some people have very legitimate medical reasons for being on VLCDs. You and I might not agree one woo per se but I think we agree that using it for this is less than ideal.
However, I love his/her use of the word deleterious. It'd be great if people could use that instead of the nonsense word 'woo'.
There are even valid non-medical reasons for VLCDs. I'm just surprised that this is in the "woo" bucket. I thought "woo" was about magical thinking that didn't work not things that are evidence-based and medically relevant.
And while cabbage soup diets might not be healthy, they aren't the definition of VLCDs nor are all VLCDs bad. There is no need to group all VLCDs together.
And this goes back to my argument that it's poorly defined, no one agrees exactly what it means and will thus confuse the reader because person A will use it with one intent, person B will use it with a different intent while person C uses it with yet another intent. It serves nothing but confusion.
If you don't want to be understood, use woo. Also use it if you don't care or just here to belittle. Myself and many others will see those that choose to use it in those terms.
But if it is important to you to be understood and helpful, use the appropriate adult word.0 -
VLCD has a definition. It's either under 800 calories or 800 and under. I don't remember if the 800 is still low-cal or falls into very low-cal. That's for women. People frequently term different numbers as being VLCD, but 799 or 800 is the cutoff.
Yes, there are many reasons a person might be on a low-cal or very low-cal diet - some good, some not-so-good, some very poor, indeed.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions