What is "woo"
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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.
I think since I gave a dictionary definition and specific examples, there's no issue with using it. The problem is with people being ignorant of that definition. There's no reason for anyone to agree or disagree about what it means when the dictionary definition is right there. It is an adult word, and I use it that way, appropriately.0 -
nakedraygun wrote: »
Oh dear. Yes because being mocked for either a non-scientific or pre-scientific belief that is clearly wrong, is exactly the same as systematic persecution of a dogmatic authority like the pre-enlightenment Catholic Church.nakedraygun wrote: »
Beliefs that are ridiculous do not deserve a critical response, they deserve to be mocked.It's some made up word that people use to try to shame others into their way of thinking. It's basically calling someone stupid but in an attempt to appear less offensive. Don't let people shame your personal decisions with words like woo. It used to be derp but that's become too much of a pejorative. The same will happen with woo. Next people will use the next "clever" in an attempt to disguise thier mean spiritedness.
Maybe something like sipsy. It sounds harmless enough until people wise up to what others are doing.
If anyone does indeed feel shame for holding either a ridiculous belief or non science based belief, perhaps they need to examine within themselves why and how they believe.
For me, I care about what I believe because I happen to care about reality and not a fantasy life - no matter how comforting that fantasy may be.
They mocked Galiked too. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to pretend I know with 100% certainty if something is entirely bad, we're all different after all, and when I do chose to offer that side of things, I won't do it with childish, subjective, made up words that you're admitting are meant simply to mock.
Methinks your tone concern is an attempt to mask an inability to think rationally.
You have mad auto-correct-reading skills. I would never have gotten Galileo out of Galiked. I was wondering if it was a reference to "Game of Thrones" or something else that hasn't drifted to the top of my Netflix queue yet.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.
The site called you out? Wasn't it pretty much just one person in each of these instances? I think a good many posters here appreciate your posts. I'm not sure why you are focusing on one. But I could be missing something.
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.
I think since I gave a dictionary definition and specific examples, there's no issue with using it. The problem is with people being ignorant of that definition. There's no reason for anyone to agree or disagree about what it means when the dictionary definition is right there. It is an adult word, and I use it that way, appropriately.
This thread and the obvious various uses of that term within it is my rebuttal. Not everyone will read your definition and of those that will, few will retain it. But other words are universally well known and understood. If you want to be more assured that your information will be understood, don't use woo.
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.
The site called you out? Wasn't it pretty much just one person in each of these instances? I think a good many posters here appreciate your posts. I'm not sure why you are focusing on one. But I could be missing something.
The person is associated with the site. I have to think they wouldn't quote me and say I was unhelpful unless it was true. So, it must be. Today I tried to clarify that I wasn't using the woo word as meanspirited or to mock here, but I was told I was wrong. So, I am wrong. I didn't recognize how horrible I was, it was insidious.
But we should probably get back to the topic at hand, defining what woo is, not my meanspiritedness. The horrible nature of my character is probably off topic.
It seems like you are really upset, (dunno, I might be wrong?) have you considered maybe having a personal conversation with whomever you're referring to? Maybe something could be cleared up that way. Text-based communication can sooooo easily be misconstrued. Sometimes I wish we could all be in a room, face-to-face for a few minutes. Typed words are great and all, but don't always work too well for the person expressing themselves or for the person perceiving it.
Anyway, after reading the past couple of pages, I'm noticing that there are a few words that seem to cause strife, and a lot of the time, it seems like it's words that are used in a non-literal way that some take literally, and vice-versa. I'm not certain that "woo" falls into that category, but it's something I'll keep in mind.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.
I think since I gave a dictionary definition and specific examples, there's no issue with using it. The problem is with people being ignorant of that definition. There's no reason for anyone to agree or disagree about what it means when the dictionary definition is right there. It is an adult word, and I use it that way, appropriately.
This thread and the obvious various uses of that term within it is my rebuttal. Not everyone will read your definition and of those that will, few will retain it. But other words are universally well known and understood. If you want to be more assured that your information will be understood, don't use woo.
Many words, when they first enter the common vernacular, aren't widely understood. But as they are used more and more often, more and more people come to understand what they mean. Look at how many words are used each year that didn't even exist before and are simply accepted - 'bromance', for example. Many people use the word 'woo' on this site to mean the same thing that I do, and when asked, explain what it means. Then more people know what it means. And the knowledge spreads. Just because I stop using it doesn't take it out of common usage. I'll continue to explain it when asked, so that more people understand when others use it.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.
If you were to question my comment, I might mention a variety of short term VLCDs used in all sports - particularly for 'making weight' in professional sport events that are not know (mostly due to the health of the person and the duration) to cause medical issues. Or I might mention a few controlled protein sparing fasts, also not know to cause the issues reported in the 90s by VLCDs. However, like you say, I'll keep my comments limited - there evidence based validity doesn't invalidate the site's decision to avoid their promotion because misused or misunderstood they can have poor outcomes.
I might even mention that a mod or two have mentioned PSMF - protein sparing modified fasts (which are VLCDs) for sporting events without its or violating the TOS.
(http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/34405298#Comment_34405298)
So it appears we have two definition for woo - one of magical thinking and another of marketing and persuasion.
I do believe it is possible to discuss certain aspects of a variety of conditions, diets (VLCDs, etc) without promoting them. The threads and discussions I've had in the past did not result in censure or banning.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.
I think since I gave a dictionary definition and specific examples, there's no issue with using it. The problem is with people being ignorant of that definition. There's no reason for anyone to agree or disagree about what it means when the dictionary definition is right there. It is an adult word, and I use it that way, appropriately.
This thread and the obvious various uses of that term within it is my rebuttal. Not everyone will read your definition and of those that will, few will retain it. But other words are universally well known and understood. If you want to be more assured that your information will be understood, don't use woo.
Nor do we have to agree that there is only one unique definition. Language is fluid.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions