What is the daftest weight related thing someone has ever said to you?
Options
Replies
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »youdoyou2016 wrote: »nickslat1961 wrote: »Diet soda will make you gain weight and causes cancer
Well I have actually read a lot of studies about diet soda and none of them are good. The problem with DS is your body thinks it is sweet and you have just taken in sugar, when you haven't, so your body produces insulin to regulate the sugar you didn't drink. Eventually your body starts to slow down on insulin production and problems start. And if you don't think the phenylaniline (sp.) in Diet Coke is bad, just google it and see. If 1/2 of what is said about it is true it is really bad for you
Any studies done that suggest diet soda causes weight gain are correlational. What that means is that there is a correlation between those who drink diet soda and those who are overweight...but if we could all say it together now..."correlation does not equal causation!".
Any link between the two is easily explained by the fact that people who are already overweight/diabetic begin drinking diet soda to help them lose weight/control blood sugar.
Have a nice day.
You can employ this reasoning about anything regarding health: cigarettes, alcohol, dark chocolate, apples, seat belts, multi-vitamins, aspirin, eating breakfast, not eating breakfast ... (Also, the above is not a "fact.")
Links between things can be explained "easily" however you decide to link what with what.
Have a nice day.
You know that's not just done at random, right? There's a whole science around how to work out the difference between correlation and causation and it's not just based on which outcome you like better.
I haven't personally looked into the evidence on artifical sweeteners so I don't have a stance on it, but I would say that googling an issue and finding that people are saying bad stuff is completely irrelevant. You need to look at peer reviewed studies and make an effort to assess the quality of the study and also check whether what it claims to prove (or others claim it proves) is actually possible to prove with that study.
As an example, the decision that studies on lung cancer and cigarettes prove causation took a lot of time, analysis and careful study design. It was not based on a bit of correlation and a hunch.
I love the example of that the number of babies born in a town has a direct correlation to the number of Indian takeaways in that town. So we can obviously assume that a good curry helps pregnancy yeah LOL
Or the number of murders to the sale of ice cream! ice cream should be illegal!8 -
NorthCascades wrote: »"You lose weight in the kitchen, not by exercising."
Weight-loss does start in the kitchen. It's just science. It's 80% diet, 20% exercise. So while they were on the right track, they just worded it incorrectly.3 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »youdoyou2016 wrote: »nickslat1961 wrote: »Diet soda will make you gain weight and causes cancer
Well I have actually read a lot of studies about diet soda and none of them are good. The problem with DS is your body thinks it is sweet and you have just taken in sugar, when you haven't, so your body produces insulin to regulate the sugar you didn't drink. Eventually your body starts to slow down on insulin production and problems start. And if you don't think the phenylaniline (sp.) in Diet Coke is bad, just google it and see. If 1/2 of what is said about it is true it is really bad for you
Any studies done that suggest diet soda causes weight gain are correlational. What that means is that there is a correlation between those who drink diet soda and those who are overweight...but if we could all say it together now..."correlation does not equal causation!".
Any link between the two is easily explained by the fact that people who are already overweight/diabetic begin drinking diet soda to help them lose weight/control blood sugar.
Have a nice day.
You can employ this reasoning about anything regarding health: cigarettes, alcohol, dark chocolate, apples, seat belts, multi-vitamins, aspirin, eating breakfast, not eating breakfast ... (Also, the above is not a "fact.")
Links between things can be explained "easily" however you decide to link what with what.
Have a nice day.
You know that's not just done at random, right? There's a whole science around how to work out the difference between correlation and causation and it's not just based on which outcome you like better.
I haven't personally looked into the evidence on artifical sweeteners so I don't have a stance on it, but I would say that googling an issue and finding that people are saying bad stuff is completely irrelevant. You need to look at peer reviewed studies and make an effort to assess the quality of the study and also check whether what it claims to prove (or others claim it proves) is actually possible to prove with that study.
As an example, the decision that studies on lung cancer and cigarettes prove causation took a lot of time, analysis and careful study design. It was not based on a bit of correlation and a hunch.
I love the example of that the number of babies born in a town has a direct correlation to the number of Indian takeaways in that town. So we can obviously assume that a good curry helps pregnancy yeah LOL
Or the number of murders to the sale of ice cream! ice cream should be illegal!
I'm going to have to ask you to shut your dirty mouth.
I will stab the person that tries to take my ice cream. ...I'm going to be a statistic. 17 -
This thread enrages me because it's about 70% stupid myths, and about 20% people who think true things are stupid myths, and 10% people who pedantically refuse to understand the actual intention behind the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat".21
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »youdoyou2016 wrote: »nickslat1961 wrote: »Diet soda will make you gain weight and causes cancer
Well I have actually read a lot of studies about diet soda and none of them are good. The problem with DS is your body thinks it is sweet and you have just taken in sugar, when you haven't, so your body produces insulin to regulate the sugar you didn't drink. Eventually your body starts to slow down on insulin production and problems start. And if you don't think the phenylaniline (sp.) in Diet Coke is bad, just google it and see. If 1/2 of what is said about it is true it is really bad for you
Any studies done that suggest diet soda causes weight gain are correlational. What that means is that there is a correlation between those who drink diet soda and those who are overweight...but if we could all say it together now..."correlation does not equal causation!".
Any link between the two is easily explained by the fact that people who are already overweight/diabetic begin drinking diet soda to help them lose weight/control blood sugar.
Have a nice day.
You can employ this reasoning about anything regarding health: cigarettes, alcohol, dark chocolate, apples, seat belts, multi-vitamins, aspirin, eating breakfast, not eating breakfast ... (Also, the above is not a "fact.")
Links between things can be explained "easily" however you decide to link what with what.
Have a nice day.
You know that's not just done at random, right? There's a whole science around how to work out the difference between correlation and causation and it's not just based on which outcome you like better.
I haven't personally looked into the evidence on artifical sweeteners so I don't have a stance on it, but I would say that googling an issue and finding that people are saying bad stuff is completely irrelevant. You need to look at peer reviewed studies and make an effort to assess the quality of the study and also check whether what it claims to prove (or others claim it proves) is actually possible to prove with that study.
As an example, the decision that studies on lung cancer and cigarettes prove causation took a lot of time, analysis and careful study design. It was not based on a bit of correlation and a hunch.
I love the example of that the number of babies born in a town has a direct correlation to the number of Indian takeaways in that town. So we can obviously assume that a good curry helps pregnancy yeah LOL
Or the number of murders to the sale of ice cream! ice cream should be illegal!
I'm going to have to ask you to shut your dirty mouth. I will stab the person that tries to take my ice cream. ...I'm going to be a statistic.
This gun is filled with soapy water...TO CLEAN YOUR DIRTY LYING MOUTH!
bahahahahahahaha10 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »youdoyou2016 wrote: »nickslat1961 wrote: »Diet soda will make you gain weight and causes cancer
Well I have actually read a lot of studies about diet soda and none of them are good. The problem with DS is your body thinks it is sweet and you have just taken in sugar, when you haven't, so your body produces insulin to regulate the sugar you didn't drink. Eventually your body starts to slow down on insulin production and problems start. And if you don't think the phenylaniline (sp.) in Diet Coke is bad, just google it and see. If 1/2 of what is said about it is true it is really bad for you
Any studies done that suggest diet soda causes weight gain are correlational. What that means is that there is a correlation between those who drink diet soda and those who are overweight...but if we could all say it together now..."correlation does not equal causation!".
Any link between the two is easily explained by the fact that people who are already overweight/diabetic begin drinking diet soda to help them lose weight/control blood sugar.
Have a nice day.
You can employ this reasoning about anything regarding health: cigarettes, alcohol, dark chocolate, apples, seat belts, multi-vitamins, aspirin, eating breakfast, not eating breakfast ... (Also, the above is not a "fact.")
Links between things can be explained "easily" however you decide to link what with what.
Have a nice day.
You know that's not just done at random, right? There's a whole science around how to work out the difference between correlation and causation and it's not just based on which outcome you like better.
I haven't personally looked into the evidence on artifical sweeteners so I don't have a stance on it, but I would say that googling an issue and finding that people are saying bad stuff is completely irrelevant. You need to look at peer reviewed studies and make an effort to assess the quality of the study and also check whether what it claims to prove (or others claim it proves) is actually possible to prove with that study.
As an example, the decision that studies on lung cancer and cigarettes prove causation took a lot of time, analysis and careful study design. It was not based on a bit of correlation and a hunch.
I love the example of that the number of babies born in a town has a direct correlation to the number of Indian takeaways in that town. So we can obviously assume that a good curry helps pregnancy yeah LOL
Or the number of murders to the sale of ice cream! ice cream should be illegal!
I'm going to have to ask you to shut your dirty mouth. I will stab the person that tries to take my ice cream. ...I'm going to be a statistic.
This gun is filled with soapy water...TO CLEAN YOUR DIRTY LYING MOUTH!
bahahahahahahaha
Stop it Spicey!7 -
"The high sodium content in diet soda will sabotage your weight loss." 11
-
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »This thread enrages me because it's about 70% stupid myths, and about 20% people who think true things are stupid myths, and 10% people who pedantically refuse to understand the actual intention behind the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat".
I haven't seen any incorrect claims go unchallenged...
Which true things are being called myths?1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »I was told by a 19 year old fitness trainer at a gym that eating clean was ridiculous because there is no way anyone can stick to that lifestyle. So I would do better to download their fitness app and log in my calories because I can eat whatever I want, as long as I stay under my calorie goal. ...I had been eating clean for 3 months and had lost about 30 pounds. I told him that it was actually easy eating clean now that addictive sugars were out of my system. He looked at me like that was the most absurd thing he had ever heard in his short life. He then grabbed a flip-yogurt from his fridge, read the nutritional facts off while adding them to his calorie app. He raved about how it was a decent snack and only had 190 calories in it. I pointed out it had 24g of Carbs and I stay under 15g a day. I pointed out it also had 17g of sugars which will burn up quickly in his system and make him feel ravenous later. He then said what I am doing for weight loss will absolutely not work for me long term. I stood up, shook his hand and said, "I think we are done here." He told me to feel free to come back to him when my plan fails. Four months later with some minor macro adjustments, my plan is still going strong.
Nothing wrong with what he said though. Eating clean is not necessary at all to lose weight
Also, sugars are not addictive. We crave them, but it's just an evolutionary thing to like high calorie foods, it's why we like high fat foods too. Not an addiction.12 -
need2belean wrote: »
Off topic, but how are you liking the stand up desk? I work from home and know that I sit way too much. I'm looking at this https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01K6P748E/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=DU440NCHDVX7&coliid=I2ZB7QUQ1OPO0Z since I could use while I'm using my bike and just in general.
@srk369 http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10437598/introducing-standing-at-desk-working#latest0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
(Some stuff snipped by reply-er)
I haven't personally looked into the evidence on artifical sweeteners so I don't have a stance on it, but I would say that googling an issue and finding that people are saying bad stuff is completely irrelevant. You need to look at peer reviewed studies and make an effort to assess the quality of the study and also check whether what it claims to prove (or others claim it proves) is actually possible to prove with that study.
As an example, the decision that studies on lung cancer and cigarettes prove causation took a lot of time, analysis and careful study design. It was not based on a bit of correlation and a hunch.
Noooo! They're just boooorrring - all fulla big words and long sentences and no cool pictures or exclamation points. The only pictures are those chart thingies, and no kittens or bananas. I'm not gonna learn statistics, it's boring, too, and just makes you lie to people. It's almost like math, or something. And who wants to listen to a bunch of out-of-touch eggheads, anyway. They don't live in the real world. I just trust my gut, and the popular blogs. They wouldn't be popular if they weren't right, 'cos the people know what's right. Besides, I can understand what the blog people are saying, so they aren't trying to hide stuff from me.
(Where is the sarcasm font when I need it, anyway? And yes, this reply is on topic. Those are some of the daft things I've heard some people say about weight loss. Sure, I had to read between the lines a little, and be kinda mean. Li'l ol' ladies get to be mean. Old age gotta buy us something.
And no, I'm explicitly not (not! NOT!) saying any of the specific people earlier in this sub-thread think that way, which is why I snipped those quotes. I'm just riffing on the good info in the last post. ).18 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
(Some stuff snipped by reply-er)
I haven't personally looked into the evidence on artifical sweeteners so I don't have a stance on it, but I would say that googling an issue and finding that people are saying bad stuff is completely irrelevant. You need to look at peer reviewed studies and make an effort to assess the quality of the study and also check whether what it claims to prove (or others claim it proves) is actually possible to prove with that study.
As an example, the decision that studies on lung cancer and cigarettes prove causation took a lot of time, analysis and careful study design. It was not based on a bit of correlation and a hunch.
Noooo! They're just boooorrring - all fulla big words and long sentences and no cool pictures or exclamation points. The only pictures are those chart thingies, and no kittens or bananas. I'm not gonna learn statistics, it's boring, too, and just makes you lie to people. It's almost like math, or something. And who wants to listen to a bunch of out-of-touch eggheads, anyway. They don't live in the real world. I just trust my gut, and the popular blogs. They wouldn't be popular if they weren't right, 'cos the people know what's right. Besides, I can understand what the blog people are saying, so they aren't trying to hide stuff from me.
(Where is the sarcasm font when I need it, anyway? And yes, this reply is on topic. Those are some of the daft things I've heard some people say about weight loss. Sure, I had to read between the lines a little, and be kinda mean. Li'l ol' ladies get to be mean. Old age gotta buy us something.
And no, I'm explicitly not (not! NOT!) saying any of the specific people earlier in this sub-thread think that way, which is why I snipped those quotes. I'm just riffing on the good info in the last post. ).
If peer-reviewed studies could be, for lack of a better term, "dumbed-down" for people like me who don't understand what some of the sciencey terms mean, I'd be grateful. Or use memes like Chemistry Cat.3 -
A friend who I swear knows better (or at least I thought she did) posted recently "Any suggestions for shedding holiday weight other than cabbage soup?" I was too dumbfounded to respond.7
-
One myth that has not only gone unchallenged on this thread but been seconded by a number of people is that sugar is not addictive. Many studies have shown that affects the brain very similarly to cocaine; it stimulates the same pleasure center and long-term abuse of sugar depletes dopamine in the brain--the very same reason cocaine is addictive. A study last year demonstrated that a nicotine-addiction drug was successful in treating sugar addiction. Etc.0
-
Dianetheinvincible wrote: »One myth that has not only gone unchallenged on this thread but been seconded by a number of people is that sugar is not addictive. Many studies have shown that affects the brain very similarly to cocaine; it stimulates the same pleasure center and long-term abuse of sugar depletes dopamine in the brain--the very same reason cocaine is addictive. A study last year demonstrated that a nicotine-addiction drug was successful in treating sugar addiction. Etc.
Cuddling your pet activates the same pleasure areas in your brain. Sugar is not addictive. The reason we crave it is evolutionary, from when calories were scarce.
You may have sugar cravings, but it's not the same thing as addiction. http://www.livescience.com/40749-addiction-drugs-sugar.html21 -
I'm not gonna learn statistics, it's boring, too, and just makes you lie to people. It's almost like math, or something.
62.8% of statistics are made up on the spot, you know. Within a 0.02% tolerance, of course.TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »This thread enrages me because it's about 70% stupid myths, and about 20% people who think true things are stupid myths, and 10% people who pedantically refuse to understand the actual intention behind the phrase "muscle weighs more than fat".
I read a very long-winded comment on a blog somewhere (maybe even MFP's own blog) about this, where the comparison was demonstrated by the difference in volume between an equal weight of feathers and gold. The commenter was going about how gold is weighed in Troy ounces so the comparison wasn't valid.
But I have to admit that the above phrase does irritate me (yes, I'm a pedant, so what? ), because it's not the weight that should be compared. At least the gold/feathers thing was talking about the volume/appearance of the same weight of each. 
3 -
Dianetheinvincible wrote: »One myth that has not only gone unchallenged on this thread but been seconded by a number of people is that sugar is not addictive. Many studies have shown that affects the brain very similarly to cocaine; it stimulates the same pleasure center and long-term abuse of sugar depletes dopamine in the brain--the very same reason cocaine is addictive. A study last year demonstrated that a nicotine-addiction drug was successful in treating sugar addiction. Etc.
Cuddling your pet activates the same pleasure areas in your brain. Sugar is not addictive. The reason we crave it is evolutionary, from when calories were scarce.
This. Just because a stimulus activates the same pleasure center in the brain doesn't make that stimulus physically addictive. As I was rhetorically pointing out in one of my earlier responses upthread, one's inability to control their sugar intake never reaches the stage that real addicts deal with, be they heroin users, cocaine users, alcoholics, etc. I also believe that equating sugar to hard drug addiction is an insult to actual addicts and their families, because it minimizes the struggle and loss that those people go through on a daily basis.
I challenge anyone who claims sugar is as addictive as actual drugs to point me towards a case study showing "sugar addicts" throwing their lives away to get their sugar fix. And as stated by someone else upthread, the side effects of heroin withdrawal can actually be fatal. Sugar withdrawal, on the other hand? I think not.
ETA: I watched a friend overcome a heroin addiction. In the year it took her to get clean, she dealt with seizures, vomiting, panic attacks, and severe clinical depression. Another friend who was addicted to meth tried for years to kick his habit and ended up dying. I've also seen many people in my life try to kick their sugar habit. And I can assure you it's not even close.29 -
Drink a diet soda when you eat a candy bar. It cancels out the candy bars calories.13
-
I think that it's not sugar that is "addictive" but overeating. If it were really sugar pizza wouldn't do the trick. Even the group is called overeaters anonymous. Those who have this issue are still using a substance/behaviour to fill a whole/need or to forget something. They are compelled to do something that is harmful to them and can't stop.
I don't think it should be considered insulting to people who are addicted to drugs or alcohol...look at the people on My 600 pound Life who are handed a death sentence but still continue...maybe technically it's more like a gambling or sex addiction but if it's ruining your lifeand you can't stop, is the argument really worth having?3 -
Dianetheinvincible wrote: »One myth that has not only gone unchallenged on this thread but been seconded by a number of people is that sugar is not addictive. Many studies have shown that affects the brain very similarly to cocaine; it stimulates the same pleasure center and long-term abuse of sugar depletes dopamine in the brain--the very same reason cocaine is addictive. A study last year demonstrated that a nicotine-addiction drug was successful in treating sugar addiction. Etc.
Everything that is pleasurable activates the "pleasure center" of the brain. That is not an indication of addiction. Also, affecting the same area of the brain as cocaine does not mean that it affects that area "similarly" to cocaine.
Sugar activates the brain. Cocaine straight up hijacks the brain and creates a chemical dependency.
They are not even close and I challenge you to produce one single peer reviewed study which legitimately indicates that sugar is addictive in humans. None exist.
Strong first post.19
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
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions