Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

19899101103104239

Replies

  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    The difficulty is that we are attempting to interpret the meaning of a term "fattening" to multiple communities.

    One being the lay person - those generally ignorant of the issues surrounding weight management.

    The other being the average MFP user - while many may disagree on the particulars there is a minimum foundation of the variables impacting weight management.

    Having this foundational knowledge does lead one to challenge so called "established" thinking and makes terms such as fattening very situational dependent. There is a great deal of bias in this as the majority of MFP users are more focused on deficit; however this term is going to have a different meaning to those focusing on gaining.

    Based upon this thread alone, I'd strongly disagree with the bolded. Reading most of the other threads on MFP would only strengthen that stance. MFP users, as a whole, are just as enraptured with woo, fearmongering and pseudoscience as the uneducated lay person. Cleanses/detoxes. Juice fasts. Apple cider vinegar. Green tea. MLM scams. Sugar/carb demonization. The magickal, miraculous wizardries of keto and IF. Military diet. Gaining slabs of muscle while eating 1000 calories of lettuce and doing 4 hours of cardio per day. Et cetera ad nauseum.

    I will, however, agree with the above if we establish "minimum foundation" as being on a level with the derpy weight loss/diet articles found in magazines and the garbage in Netflix "documentaries".

    Now there's one that's like nails on a chalkboard for me.

    Is this just lazy language, or do people think that the documentaries they see on Netflix are original content (the vast majority are not)?

    It would be like referring to movies as AMC movies or television shows as Comcast shows.
    Now that's an interesting one.

    Isn't "Netflix documentary" faintly derogatory some times?

    Is a "Netflix documentary":
    1) a documentary produced by Netflix,
    2) a documentary you watched on Netflix, that you could have seen elsewhere, or,
    3) a documentary only available on Netflix because no-one else is willing to touch it?

    I see a lot of (3), some (1) and some (2).
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    The difficulty is that we are attempting to interpret the meaning of a term "fattening" to multiple communities.

    One being the lay person - those generally ignorant of the issues surrounding weight management.

    The other being the average MFP user - while many may disagree on the particulars there is a minimum foundation of the variables impacting weight management.

    Having this foundational knowledge does lead one to challenge so called "established" thinking and makes terms such as fattening very situational dependent. There is a great deal of bias in this as the majority of MFP users are more focused on deficit; however this term is going to have a different meaning to those focusing on gaining.

    Based upon this thread alone, I'd strongly disagree with the bolded. Reading most of the other threads on MFP would only strengthen that stance. MFP users, as a whole, are just as enraptured with woo, fearmongering and pseudoscience as the uneducated lay person. Cleanses/detoxes. Juice fasts. Apple cider vinegar. Green tea. MLM scams. Sugar/carb demonization. The magickal, miraculous wizardries of keto and IF. Military diet. Gaining slabs of muscle while eating 1000 calories of lettuce and doing 4 hours of cardio per day. Et cetera ad nauseum.

    I will, however, agree with the above if we establish "minimum foundation" as being on a level with the derpy weight loss/diet articles found in magazines and the garbage in Netflix "documentaries".

    Now there's one that's like nails on a chalkboard for me.

    Is this just lazy language, or do people think that the documentaries they see on Netflix are original content (the vast majority are not)?

    It would be like referring to movies as AMC movies or television shows as Comcast shows.

    Note the "in" before Netflix. They mean the category of Documentaries on Netflix, not that they are Netflix produced.

    The "in" doesn't modify in that way at all.

    "in" is the location of the information, which is followed by the source of said information. It would work as "documentaries in/on Netflix," but not as "in Netflix documentaries."

    I understand your point, but I think it makes sense here because Netflix does seem to be the main distribution point for films like "What the Health," "Fed Up," and "Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead."
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    Apparently believing frozen meals like Lean Cuisine or Healthy Choice are NOT high in sodium is an unpopular opinion. Do you consider 23-24% of your daily intake high in sodium? I don't. It's one meal. 1/3 of my day.

    But is it 1/3 of your daily calories?

    No. I like a big dinner. Small breakfast and lunch. I never have problems with sodium, though.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    The difficulty is that we are attempting to interpret the meaning of a term "fattening" to multiple communities.

    One being the lay person - those generally ignorant of the issues surrounding weight management.

    The other being the average MFP user - while many may disagree on the particulars there is a minimum foundation of the variables impacting weight management.

    Having this foundational knowledge does lead one to challenge so called "established" thinking and makes terms such as fattening very situational dependent. There is a great deal of bias in this as the majority of MFP users are more focused on deficit; however this term is going to have a different meaning to those focusing on gaining.

    Based upon this thread alone, I'd strongly disagree with the bolded. Reading most of the other threads on MFP would only strengthen that stance. MFP users, as a whole, are just as enraptured with woo, fearmongering and pseudoscience as the uneducated lay person. Cleanses/detoxes. Juice fasts. Apple cider vinegar. Green tea. MLM scams. Sugar/carb demonization. The magickal, miraculous wizardries of keto and IF. Military diet. Gaining slabs of muscle while eating 1000 calories of lettuce and doing 4 hours of cardio per day. Et cetera ad nauseum.

    I will, however, agree with the above if we establish "minimum foundation" as being on a level with the derpy weight loss/diet articles found in magazines and the garbage in Netflix "documentaries".

    Now there's one that's like nails on a chalkboard for me.

    Is this just lazy language, or do people think that the documentaries they see on Netflix are original content (the vast majority are not)?

    It would be like referring to movies as AMC movies or television shows as Comcast shows.

    Note the "in" before Netflix. They mean the category of Documentaries on Netflix, not that they are Netflix produced.

    The "in" doesn't modify in that way at all.

    "in" is the location of the information, which is followed by the source of said information. It would work as "documentaries in/on Netflix," but not as "in Netflix documentaries."

    Parse it however you like; it was mainly intended in a derisive/tongue in cheek sense. Similar to if I had said "being on a level with the weight loss/diet 'facts' in/on the Dr. Oz show".

    For the official record, I'm fully aware that Netflix doesn't produce their own content. Nor does any other network/broadcast entity, for the most part.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I'm sure you meant to post the OED definition to strengthen the point of it being a perfectly fine word. The fact that they use a reference from an 1800's medical textbook isn't filling me with confidence as to the validity of the word.

    That pretty much invalidates every word in the OED and therefore the English language!

    Those references aren't there as citations in the standard, as stated by Nuffield, in the publication Broscience Nonsense, issue 38, 2001 sense.

    The OED always quotes the earliest recorded usages of words, to demonstrate how long the word has been in use for the etymologists amongst us. (Or people just trying to write historically accurate fiction.) It's kind of its selling point for a subscription.



    The definition you quoted is different than the one the prior poster seemed to be using.

    To fatten of course means to make or become fat.

    The question is whether eating a specific food makes you become fat, and the answer is it doesn't.

    The prior poster is using the word in a different way, to mean "calorie dense." That's fine, but saying "calorie dense" would be a lot clearer.

    Exactly. We had 2 different definitions posted, one of which would apply to everything and the other to nothing.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I'm sure you meant to post the OED definition to strengthen the point of it being a perfectly fine word. The fact that they use a reference from an 1800's medical textbook isn't filling me with confidence as to the validity of the word.

    That pretty much invalidates every word in the OED and therefore the English language!

    Those references aren't there as citations in the standard, as stated by Nuffield, in the publication Broscience Nonsense, issue 38, 2001 sense.

    The OED always quotes the earliest recorded usages of words, to demonstrate how long the word has been in use for the etymologists amongst us. (Or people just trying to write historically accurate fiction.) It's kind of its selling point for a subscription.



    The definition you quoted is different than the one the prior poster seemed to be using.

    To fatten of course means to make or become fat.

    The question is whether eating a specific food makes you become fat, and the answer is it doesn't.

    The prior poster is using the word in a different way, to mean "calorie dense." That's fine, but saying "calorie dense" would be a lot clearer.

    Exactly. We had 2 different definitions posted, one of which would apply to everything and the other to nothing.

    The Sprague-Dawley rats of definitions.
  • accidentalpancake
    accidentalpancake Posts: 484 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    The difficulty is that we are attempting to interpret the meaning of a term "fattening" to multiple communities.

    One being the lay person - those generally ignorant of the issues surrounding weight management.

    The other being the average MFP user - while many may disagree on the particulars there is a minimum foundation of the variables impacting weight management.

    Having this foundational knowledge does lead one to challenge so called "established" thinking and makes terms such as fattening very situational dependent. There is a great deal of bias in this as the majority of MFP users are more focused on deficit; however this term is going to have a different meaning to those focusing on gaining.

    Based upon this thread alone, I'd strongly disagree with the bolded. Reading most of the other threads on MFP would only strengthen that stance. MFP users, as a whole, are just as enraptured with woo, fearmongering and pseudoscience as the uneducated lay person. Cleanses/detoxes. Juice fasts. Apple cider vinegar. Green tea. MLM scams. Sugar/carb demonization. The magickal, miraculous wizardries of keto and IF. Military diet. Gaining slabs of muscle while eating 1000 calories of lettuce and doing 4 hours of cardio per day. Et cetera ad nauseum.

    I will, however, agree with the above if we establish "minimum foundation" as being on a level with the derpy weight loss/diet articles found in magazines and the garbage in Netflix "documentaries".

    Now there's one that's like nails on a chalkboard for me.

    Is this just lazy language, or do people think that the documentaries they see on Netflix are original content (the vast majority are not)?

    It would be like referring to movies as AMC movies or television shows as Comcast shows.

    Note the "in" before Netflix. They mean the category of Documentaries on Netflix, not that they are Netflix produced.

    The "in" doesn't modify in that way at all.

    "in" is the location of the information, which is followed by the source of said information. It would work as "documentaries in/on Netflix," but not as "in Netflix documentaries."

    Parse it however you like; it was mainly intended in a derisive/tongue in cheek sense. Similar to if I had said "being on a level with the weight loss/diet 'facts' in/on the Dr. Oz show".

    For the official record, I'm fully aware that Netflix doesn't produce their own content. Nor does any other network/broadcast entity, for the most part.

    It wasn't targeted solely at you. It's a common thing.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Apparently believing frozen meals like Lean Cuisine or Healthy Choice are NOT high in sodium is an unpopular opinion. Do you consider 23-24% of your daily intake high in sodium? I don't. It's one meal. 1/3 of my day.

    But is it 1/3 of your daily calories?

    No. I like a big dinner. Small breakfast and lunch. I never have problems with sodium, though.

    The disproportionate percentage of sodium to percentage of calories may be why your opinion is unpopular.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member
    edited August 2017
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    The difficulty is that we are attempting to interpret the meaning of a term "fattening" to multiple communities.

    One being the lay person - those generally ignorant of the issues surrounding weight management.

    The other being the average MFP user - while many may disagree on the particulars there is a minimum foundation of the variables impacting weight management.

    Having this foundational knowledge does lead one to challenge so called "established" thinking and makes terms such as fattening very situational dependent. There is a great deal of bias in this as the majority of MFP users are more focused on deficit; however this term is going to have a different meaning to those focusing on gaining.

    Based upon this thread alone, I'd strongly disagree with the bolded. Reading most of the other threads on MFP would only strengthen that stance. MFP users, as a whole, are just as enraptured with woo, fearmongering and pseudoscience as the uneducated lay person. Cleanses/detoxes. Juice fasts. Apple cider vinegar. Green tea. MLM scams. Sugar/carb demonization. The magickal, miraculous wizardries of keto and IF. Military diet. Gaining slabs of muscle while eating 1000 calories of lettuce and doing 4 hours of cardio per day. Et cetera ad nauseum.

    I will, however, agree with the above if we establish "minimum foundation" as being on a level with the derpy weight loss/diet articles found in magazines and the garbage in Netflix "documentaries".

    Now there's one that's like nails on a chalkboard for me.

    Is this just lazy language, or do people think that the documentaries they see on Netflix are original content (the vast majority are not)?

    It would be like referring to movies as AMC movies or television shows as Comcast shows.

    Note the "in" before Netflix. They mean the category of Documentaries on Netflix, not that they are Netflix produced.

    The "in" doesn't modify in that way at all.

    "in" is the location of the information, which is followed by the source of said information. It would work as "documentaries in/on Netflix," but not as "in Netflix documentaries."

    I wouldn't get too hung up on this. It's just a term. Most people don't believe that "YouTube videos" are made by YouTube.
    Ah, those would be examples for my third category. ;) The medium may change from the written/printed word to video, but the drawbacks to relying on self-published content for entertainment remain constant.


  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I'm sure you meant to post the OED definition to strengthen the point of it being a perfectly fine word. The fact that they use a reference from an 1800's medical textbook isn't filling me with confidence as to the validity of the word.

    That pretty much invalidates every word in the OED and therefore the English language!

    Those references aren't there as citations in the standard, as stated by Nuffield, in the publication Broscience Nonsense, issue 38, 2001 sense.

    The OED always quotes the earliest recorded usages of words, to demonstrate how long the word has been in use for the etymologists amongst us. (Or people just trying to write historically accurate fiction.) It's kind of its selling point for a subscription.



    The definition you quoted is different than the one the prior poster seemed to be using.

    To fatten of course means to make or become fat.

    The question is whether eating a specific food makes you become fat, and the answer is it doesn't.

    The prior poster is using the word in a different way, to mean "calorie dense." That's fine, but saying "calorie dense" would be a lot clearer.
    It would be different- I used a different dictionary. I think before I posted, the discussion had involved Cambridge's free online one and Websters free online one.

    As I said previously, (I think), I would understand "fattening food" to be food that is calorie-dense. Generally in implied comparison to other food that are reasonable alternatives.

    Anyway didn't really like either of the dictionary entries posted so far, and it's not a proper semantical argument if no-one willy-waves their access to the OED.

    Fair enough. I have an OED in my office, so I understand the impulse to consult it!
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Huh. I guess my unpopular opinion is that there is no such thing as a "fattening food."

    I guess my unpopular opinions when it comes to overly pedantic debates are:

    1) Does it really *puppy* matter? Usually, the answer is a resounding "*puppy* no."
    2) Who gives a flying *puppy*? Which, I guess could be considered just another way of saying #1.
    TR0berts wrote: »
    Huh. I guess my unpopular opinion is that there is no such thing as a "fattening food."

    I guess my unpopular opinions when it comes to overly pedantic debates are:

    1) Does it really *puppy* matter? Usually, the answer is a resounding "*puppy* no."
    2) Who gives a flying *puppy*? Which, I guess could be considered just another way of saying #1.
    So, what do you think of the linguistic shift in usage for "disinterested" since approx. 1950? ;)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    The difficulty is that we are attempting to interpret the meaning of a term "fattening" to multiple communities.

    One being the lay person - those generally ignorant of the issues surrounding weight management.

    The other being the average MFP user - while many may disagree on the particulars there is a minimum foundation of the variables impacting weight management.

    Having this foundational knowledge does lead one to challenge so called "established" thinking and makes terms such as fattening very situational dependent. There is a great deal of bias in this as the majority of MFP users are more focused on deficit; however this term is going to have a different meaning to those focusing on gaining.

    Based upon this thread alone, I'd strongly disagree with the bolded. Reading most of the other threads on MFP would only strengthen that stance. MFP users, as a whole, are just as enraptured with woo, fearmongering and pseudoscience as the uneducated lay person. Cleanses/detoxes. Juice fasts. Apple cider vinegar. Green tea. MLM scams. Sugar/carb demonization. The magickal, miraculous wizardries of keto and IF. Military diet. Gaining slabs of muscle while eating 1000 calories of lettuce and doing 4 hours of cardio per day. Et cetera ad nauseum.

    I will, however, agree with the above if we establish "minimum foundation" as being on a level with the derpy weight loss/diet articles found in magazines and the garbage in Netflix "documentaries".

    Now there's one that's like nails on a chalkboard for me.

    Is this just lazy language, or do people think that the documentaries they see on Netflix are original content (the vast majority are not)?

    It would be like referring to movies as AMC movies or television shows as Comcast shows.

    Note the "in" before Netflix. They mean the category of Documentaries on Netflix, not that they are Netflix produced.

    The "in" doesn't modify in that way at all.

    "in" is the location of the information, which is followed by the source of said information. It would work as "documentaries in/on Netflix," but not as "in Netflix documentaries."

    I would understand "Netflix documentaries" as Vintage Feline said, documentaries on Netflix.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    The difficulty is that we are attempting to interpret the meaning of a term "fattening" to multiple communities.

    One being the lay person - those generally ignorant of the issues surrounding weight management.

    The other being the average MFP user - while many may disagree on the particulars there is a minimum foundation of the variables impacting weight management.

    Having this foundational knowledge does lead one to challenge so called "established" thinking and makes terms such as fattening very situational dependent. There is a great deal of bias in this as the majority of MFP users are more focused on deficit; however this term is going to have a different meaning to those focusing on gaining.

    Based upon this thread alone, I'd strongly disagree with the bolded. Reading most of the other threads on MFP would only strengthen that stance. MFP users, as a whole, are just as enraptured with woo, fearmongering and pseudoscience as the uneducated lay person. Cleanses/detoxes. Juice fasts. Apple cider vinegar. Green tea. MLM scams. Sugar/carb demonization. The magickal, miraculous wizardries of keto and IF. Military diet. Gaining slabs of muscle while eating 1000 calories of lettuce and doing 4 hours of cardio per day. Et cetera ad nauseum.

    I will, however, agree with the above if we establish "minimum foundation" as being on a level with the derpy weight loss/diet articles found in magazines and the garbage in Netflix "documentaries".

    Now there's one that's like nails on a chalkboard for me.

    Is this just lazy language, or do people think that the documentaries they see on Netflix are original content (the vast majority are not)?

    It would be like referring to movies as AMC movies or television shows as Comcast shows.

    Note the "in" before Netflix. They mean the category of Documentaries on Netflix, not that they are Netflix produced.

    The "in" doesn't modify in that way at all.

    "in" is the location of the information, which is followed by the source of said information. It would work as "documentaries in/on Netflix," but not as "in Netflix documentaries."

    I would understand "Netflix documentaries" as Vintage Feline said, documentaries on Netflix.

    That doesn't change the fact that it is lazy, from a linguistic perspective. I know that is the intent as well, but it doesn't make the structuring of it correct. Saying "Netflix documentaries" assigns ownership/responsibility to Netflix at a level past content delivery.

    To me it acknowledges that people are watching them because they are on Netflix/being promoted by Netflix. The timing tracks extremely closely.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    oh man i was wrong, this is the dumbest topic


    and yes, i've read all of this thread.

    Agreed.
This discussion has been closed.