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?
Replies
-
byustrongman wrote: »oh man i was wrong, this is the dumbest topic
and yes, i've read all of this thread.
Maybe we're all on here bored-posting instead of bored-eating?15 -
byustrongman wrote: »oh man i was wrong, this is the dumbest topic
and yes, i've read all of this thread.
I have too, and I agree. I also can't tell you how many times I've started thinking about the "I want to buy an argument" Monty Python sketch, where they argue about what an argument is.
10 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »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?
Usually pretty close on the days I eat one.
Wow, really? Aren't they all still 300 calories or less?
Nope
not sure what you are eating but it isn't lean cuisines or healthy choice steamers...mine are all under 200....
Just bought 5 of them, Lean Cuisine brand (on sale 5/$10 so I stock up). Calories range from 340 to 380 each.1 -
It's not just women's clothes. I used to wear a medium 20 years ago while in college. And I was considered a normal weight for the time. At one point as a teen, my parents were even concerned I was getting a little pudgy.For women, vanity sizing has helped disguise the slow creep of obesity. Your jeans wear out, you buy a new pair in the same size, and - ah! - they're just a little more comfy than the old pair. And you're about the same size as so many of the people around you, right? And just as active ("who's got time?!?")?
Fast forward to today, and some clothes labled "small" are too big. And I have to find slim fit dress shirts or they are very baggy. Old Navy is notoriously bad.
In addition, this past holiday, some of my family expressed concern about how thin I was and if something was wrong.
I'm the exact same weight I was 20 years ago... I haven't changed, but everyone else sure has.
8 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I have struggled with emotional eating. I still think claiming that some kind of "epidemic" of emotional eating (which probably is common, sure) is why the obesity rate is higher now is odd. I also think it's really odd to go to emotional eating from the posts on experiencing pleasure from food.
IME, emotional eating isn't about enjoying food at all. It's about self comfort and stuffing feelings. To claim it's about appreciating food strikes me as rather like thinking that alcohol abuse is fundamentally about being an oenophile or enjoying the taste of craft beers.
Humans are good at using all kinds of things to dysfunctionally deal with feelings, sure, and I doubt the tendency to do that has changed much over time. (I used to do it with food even as a teen, when I wasn't fat at all, so it also does not necessarily result in obesity.)
Why people are obese now is because food is really easily available and low cost (including the time of preparation), it tends to be around a lot and there are few cultural restrictions on eating, servings and the calorie costs of the most easily available foods are generally up, and people don't really notice, and activity that is required in daily life today is really low and for some people not easy to get without making an effort. Culturally hedonic eating is somewhat encouraged and mindless eating is common.
Indeed, I suspect mindless eating is way more responsible for obesity than emotional eating. Despite my tendency to the latter I think mindless eating was more of a culprit for me, even.
I don't get the impression from the average MFP poster who is struggling that being a foodie or enjoyment of a thought-out evening indulgence is the main stumbling block. Seems like more of them feel guilt and shame about food, eating, and almost don't really seem to enjoy food, to struggle with appreciating more than a really narrow range of foods, sometimes.
So going to "finding pleasure in an evening snack" = "emotional eating" = "the cause of obesity!" strikes me as, well, again, kind of odd.
I would say a fair part of mindless eating is out of boredom which I would consider an emotion.
I would disagree. Boredom eating is seeing food as "something to do" and not about addressing difficult feelings or self comfort, IMO.
Point remains that none of this has anything to do with the comments about desserts.
The PhDs in Psychology would say boredom is an emotion:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/07-08/dull-moment.aspx
Excerpt:
"Even though boredom is very common, there is a lack of knowledge about it," says Wijnand van Tilburg, a psychologist at the University of Southampton. "There hasn't been much research about how it affects people on an everyday basis."
Now that's changing, as scientists have begun to take a closer look at this underappreciated emotion. The results of their research are anything but dull.
Boredom is a universal experience, yet until recently researchers didn't have a go-to definition of the condition. Psychologist John Eastwood, PhD, of York University in Toronto, decided that was a good place to start. He and his colleagues scoured the scientific literature for theories of boredom and tried to extract the common elements. Then they interviewed hundreds of people about what it feels like to experience that tedious state.
They concluded that boredom is best described in terms of attention. A bored person doesn't just have nothing to do. He or she wants to be stimulated, but is unable, for whatever reason, to connect with his or her environment — a state Eastwood describes as an "unengaged mind" (Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2012).
"In a nutshell, it boiled down to boredom being the unfulfilled desire for satisfying activity," he says.
Sure, boredom is an emotion.
That doesn't make mindless eating, which is sometimes eating when one is bored, the same thing as eating to self-comfort or stuff down feelings.
Mindless and boredom eating is something that happens because food is there, I'd bet. Or because you are hanging out with someone and want something to do and getting a bite seems easy.
Also, and I repeat, don't see what this has to do with the dessert discussion.
I would even argue that mindless eating doesn't always happen out of boredom. Sometimes it's just a habit. People who watch TV for entertainment and eat at the same time are often not bored, just used to eating while watching TV. Same for eating while doing anything or just because something casual not always related to deeply held emotions triggers the eating like an ad, heat, cold, a certain time of the day, certain activity, a candy bowl on the table, and yes, boredom. It's a whole different category on its own with different representatijons and thought process. It does not involve feelings of guilt, anxiety, and self hate. It's mindless.
ETA: Re: why people don't do something about being fat
What's the most common thing you hear when someone is overweight? "I have a slow metabolism"
They just resign to that "fact" and decide they can't be bothered to starve themselves to lose weight because that should be the only way someone with a slow metabolism can lose. And yes, I agree, people not doing something about gain does not in any way mean that they got fat by eating emotionally.
Also, people tend to conform, unthinkingly, to perceived behavioral norms. People around you graze-eat, you graze-eat. Friends get the mega XL slushee, you get the mega XL slushee. "Everyone" brings cupcakes to work on their birthday, and "everyone" eats one. Etc. That's been building for decades.
I'm not at heart a corporate conspiracy fan at all, but one very clever thing advertisers have done since my 1950s/60s childhood is paint the picture that everyone, especially happy, pretty people, are always eating and drinking. They do it on the commercials, they do it on the TV shows.
Cars didn't have 12 cupholders when i was a child - most didn't even have one - and not because we were all balancing ubiquitous sugary mega drink cups on our knees in the car. Drive-up food happened, we got commercials with cute families buying happy food for cheap (and easy), and cars got cupholders. For women, vanity sizing has helped disguise the slow creep of obesity. Your jeans wear out, you buy a new pair in the same size, and - ah! - they're just a little more comfy than the old pair. And you're about the same size as so many of the people around you, right? And just as active ("who's got time?!?")?
And that's not even getting into the influence of automation - at work, in home, in play - on the average person's NEAT over the last 50 years.
Unpopular opinion: People who think obesity is mostly about emotional eating are telling us something deeply repressed about their own attitudes toward food and eating.
Yes, all of this.5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I have struggled with emotional eating. I still think claiming that some kind of "epidemic" of emotional eating (which probably is common, sure) is why the obesity rate is higher now is odd. I also think it's really odd to go to emotional eating from the posts on experiencing pleasure from food.
IME, emotional eating isn't about enjoying food at all. It's about self comfort and stuffing feelings. To claim it's about appreciating food strikes me as rather like thinking that alcohol abuse is fundamentally about being an oenophile or enjoying the taste of craft beers.
Humans are good at using all kinds of things to dysfunctionally deal with feelings, sure, and I doubt the tendency to do that has changed much over time. (I used to do it with food even as a teen, when I wasn't fat at all, so it also does not necessarily result in obesity.)
Why people are obese now is because food is really easily available and low cost (including the time of preparation), it tends to be around a lot and there are few cultural restrictions on eating, servings and the calorie costs of the most easily available foods are generally up, and people don't really notice, and activity that is required in daily life today is really low and for some people not easy to get without making an effort. Culturally hedonic eating is somewhat encouraged and mindless eating is common.
Indeed, I suspect mindless eating is way more responsible for obesity than emotional eating. Despite my tendency to the latter I think mindless eating was more of a culprit for me, even.
I don't get the impression from the average MFP poster who is struggling that being a foodie or enjoyment of a thought-out evening indulgence is the main stumbling block. Seems like more of them feel guilt and shame about food, eating, and almost don't really seem to enjoy food, to struggle with appreciating more than a really narrow range of foods, sometimes.
So going to "finding pleasure in an evening snack" = "emotional eating" = "the cause of obesity!" strikes me as, well, again, kind of odd.
I would say a fair part of mindless eating is out of boredom which I would consider an emotion.
I would disagree. Boredom eating is seeing food as "something to do" and not about addressing difficult feelings or self comfort, IMO.
Point remains that none of this has anything to do with the comments about desserts.
The PhDs in Psychology would say boredom is an emotion:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/07-08/dull-moment.aspx
Excerpt:
"Even though boredom is very common, there is a lack of knowledge about it," says Wijnand van Tilburg, a psychologist at the University of Southampton. "There hasn't been much research about how it affects people on an everyday basis."
Now that's changing, as scientists have begun to take a closer look at this underappreciated emotion. The results of their research are anything but dull.
Boredom is a universal experience, yet until recently researchers didn't have a go-to definition of the condition. Psychologist John Eastwood, PhD, of York University in Toronto, decided that was a good place to start. He and his colleagues scoured the scientific literature for theories of boredom and tried to extract the common elements. Then they interviewed hundreds of people about what it feels like to experience that tedious state.
They concluded that boredom is best described in terms of attention. A bored person doesn't just have nothing to do. He or she wants to be stimulated, but is unable, for whatever reason, to connect with his or her environment — a state Eastwood describes as an "unengaged mind" (Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2012).
"In a nutshell, it boiled down to boredom being the unfulfilled desire for satisfying activity," he says.
Sure, boredom is an emotion.
That doesn't make mindless eating, which is sometimes eating when one is bored, the same thing as eating to self-comfort or stuff down feelings.
Mindless and boredom eating is something that happens because food is there, I'd bet. Or because you are hanging out with someone and want something to do and getting a bite seems easy.
Also, and I repeat, don't see what this has to do with the dessert discussion.
I would even argue that mindless eating doesn't always happen out of boredom. Sometimes it's just a habit. People who watch TV for entertainment and eat at the same time are often not bored, just used to eating while watching TV. Same for eating while doing anything or just because something casual not always related to deeply held emotions triggers the eating like an ad, heat, cold, a certain time of the day, certain activity, a candy bowl on the table, and yes, boredom. It's a whole different category on its own with different representatijons and thought process. It does not involve feelings of guilt, anxiety, and self hate. It's mindless.
ETA: Re: why people don't do something about being fat
What's the most common thing you hear when someone is overweight? "I have a slow metabolism"
They just resign to that "fact" and decide they can't be bothered to starve themselves to lose weight because that should be the only way someone with a slow metabolism can lose. And yes, I agree, people not doing something about gain does not in any way mean that they got fat by eating emotionally.
Also, people tend to conform, unthinkingly, to perceived behavioral norms. People around you graze-eat, you graze-eat. Friends get the mega XL slushee, you get the mega XL slushee. "Everyone" brings cupcakes to work on their birthday, and "everyone" eats one. Etc. That's been building for decades.
I'm not at heart a corporate conspiracy fan at all, but one very clever thing advertisers have done since my 1950s/60s childhood is paint the picture that everyone, especially happy, pretty people, are always eating and drinking. They do it on the commercials, they do it on the TV shows.
Cars didn't have 12 cupholders when i was a child - most didn't even have one - and not because we were all balancing ubiquitous sugary mega drink cups on our knees in the car. Drive-up food happened, we got commercials with cute families buying happy food for cheap (and easy), and cars got cupholders. For women, vanity sizing has helped disguise the slow creep of obesity. Your jeans wear out, you buy a new pair in the same size, and - ah! - they're just a little more comfy than the old pair. And you're about the same size as so many of the people around you, right? And just as active ("who's got time?!?")?
And that's not even getting into the influence of automation - at work, in home, in play - on the average person's NEAT over the last 50 years.
Unpopular opinion: People who think obesity is mostly about emotional eating are telling us something deeply repressed about their own attitudes toward food and eating.
This deeply repressed attitude that people like me allegedly have about food and eating has afflicted me great with eating habits, a healthy weight, and an excellent level of fitness
10 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »
It's not just women's clothes. I used to wear a medium 20 years ago while in college. And I was considered a normal weight for the time. At one point as a teen, my parents were even concerned I was getting a little pudgy.For women, vanity sizing has helped disguise the slow creep of obesity. Your jeans wear out, you buy a new pair in the same size, and - ah! - they're just a little more comfy than the old pair. And you're about the same size as so many of the people around you, right? And just as active ("who's got time?!?")?
Fast forward to today, and some clothes labled "small" are too big. And I have to find slim fit dress shirts or they are very baggy. Old Navy is notoriously bad.
In addition, this past holiday, some of my family expressed concern about how thin I was and if something was wrong.
I'm the exact same weight I was 20 years ago... I haven't changed, but everyone else sure has.
Back when I met my wife - 21 years ago (holy *puppy*, just now realized we've known each other that long) and 35-40 lbs lighter @ 140-150 - I wore an extra large for some shirts, large for others. I've always had a deeper chest cavity than one might expect just looking at me from the front. Now, I wear medium for many shirts, large for others. And the larges almost always have extra room.
So, yeah. I feel you.3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »This deeply repressed attitude that people like me allegedly have about food and eating has afflicted me great eating habits, a healthy weight, and an excellent level of fitness
Is your shovel not worn out by now?
17 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »
It's not just women's clothes. I used to wear a medium 20 years ago while in college. And I was considered a normal weight for the time. At one point as a teen, my parents were even concerned I was getting a little pudgy.For women, vanity sizing has helped disguise the slow creep of obesity. Your jeans wear out, you buy a new pair in the same size, and - ah! - they're just a little more comfy than the old pair. And you're about the same size as so many of the people around you, right? And just as active ("who's got time?!?")?
Fast forward to today, and some clothes labled "small" are too big. And I have to find slim fit dress shirts or they are very baggy. Old Navy is notoriously bad.
In addition, this past holiday, some of my family expressed concern about how thin I was and if something was wrong.
I'm the exact same weight I was 20 years ago... I haven't changed, but everyone else sure has.
I so get the clothing size adjustment thing.
I have been the same weight most of my life, except my 5 year blip, and always fit really nicely into an adult woman's small in my middle years.
Now, back to my 'constant' weight, I drown in them, and have to shop in junior stores. Fair enough, I am a sprightly old bird with a youthful attitude to life, but having to resort to clothing for a 14-24yo when you are edging on 64, can be a little awkward at times.
As far as family are concerned, my sisters both refer to me as the little one (don't lose any more weight h).
I am the weight I alway was (they were lighter), they have both put on 15-20 lbs.
Cheers, h.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »This deeply repressed attitude that people like me allegedly have about food and eating has afflicted me great eating habits, a healthy weight, and an excellent level of fitness
Is your shovel not worn out by now?
Apparently some people come to the "What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?" forum to criticize people with unpopular opinions.15 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I have struggled with emotional eating. I still think claiming that some kind of "epidemic" of emotional eating (which probably is common, sure) is why the obesity rate is higher now is odd. I also think it's really odd to go to emotional eating from the posts on experiencing pleasure from food.
IME, emotional eating isn't about enjoying food at all. It's about self comfort and stuffing feelings. To claim it's about appreciating food strikes me as rather like thinking that alcohol abuse is fundamentally about being an oenophile or enjoying the taste of craft beers.
Humans are good at using all kinds of things to dysfunctionally deal with feelings, sure, and I doubt the tendency to do that has changed much over time. (I used to do it with food even as a teen, when I wasn't fat at all, so it also does not necessarily result in obesity.)
Why people are obese now is because food is really easily available and low cost (including the time of preparation), it tends to be around a lot and there are few cultural restrictions on eating, servings and the calorie costs of the most easily available foods are generally up, and people don't really notice, and activity that is required in daily life today is really low and for some people not easy to get without making an effort. Culturally hedonic eating is somewhat encouraged and mindless eating is common.
Indeed, I suspect mindless eating is way more responsible for obesity than emotional eating. Despite my tendency to the latter I think mindless eating was more of a culprit for me, even.
I don't get the impression from the average MFP poster who is struggling that being a foodie or enjoyment of a thought-out evening indulgence is the main stumbling block. Seems like more of them feel guilt and shame about food, eating, and almost don't really seem to enjoy food, to struggle with appreciating more than a really narrow range of foods, sometimes.
So going to "finding pleasure in an evening snack" = "emotional eating" = "the cause of obesity!" strikes me as, well, again, kind of odd.
I would say a fair part of mindless eating is out of boredom which I would consider an emotion.
I would disagree. Boredom eating is seeing food as "something to do" and not about addressing difficult feelings or self comfort, IMO.
Point remains that none of this has anything to do with the comments about desserts.
The PhDs in Psychology would say boredom is an emotion:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/07-08/dull-moment.aspx
Excerpt:
"Even though boredom is very common, there is a lack of knowledge about it," says Wijnand van Tilburg, a psychologist at the University of Southampton. "There hasn't been much research about how it affects people on an everyday basis."
Now that's changing, as scientists have begun to take a closer look at this underappreciated emotion. The results of their research are anything but dull.
Boredom is a universal experience, yet until recently researchers didn't have a go-to definition of the condition. Psychologist John Eastwood, PhD, of York University in Toronto, decided that was a good place to start. He and his colleagues scoured the scientific literature for theories of boredom and tried to extract the common elements. Then they interviewed hundreds of people about what it feels like to experience that tedious state.
They concluded that boredom is best described in terms of attention. A bored person doesn't just have nothing to do. He or she wants to be stimulated, but is unable, for whatever reason, to connect with his or her environment — a state Eastwood describes as an "unengaged mind" (Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2012).
"In a nutshell, it boiled down to boredom being the unfulfilled desire for satisfying activity," he says.
Sure, boredom is an emotion.
That doesn't make mindless eating, which is sometimes eating when one is bored, the same thing as eating to self-comfort or stuff down feelings.
Mindless and boredom eating is something that happens because food is there, I'd bet. Or because you are hanging out with someone and want something to do and getting a bite seems easy.
Also, and I repeat, don't see what this has to do with the dessert discussion.
I would even argue that mindless eating doesn't always happen out of boredom. Sometimes it's just a habit. People who watch TV for entertainment and eat at the same time are often not bored, just used to eating while watching TV. Same for eating while doing anything or just because something casual not always related to deeply held emotions triggers the eating like an ad, heat, cold, a certain time of the day, certain activity, a candy bowl on the table, and yes, boredom. It's a whole different category on its own with different representatijons and thought process. It does not involve feelings of guilt, anxiety, and self hate. It's mindless.
ETA: Re: why people don't do something about being fat
What's the most common thing you hear when someone is overweight? "I have a slow metabolism"
They just resign to that "fact" and decide they can't be bothered to starve themselves to lose weight because that should be the only way someone with a slow metabolism can lose. And yes, I agree, people not doing something about gain does not in any way mean that they got fat by eating emotionally.
Also, people tend to conform, unthinkingly, to perceived behavioral norms. People around you graze-eat, you graze-eat. Friends get the mega XL slushee, you get the mega XL slushee. "Everyone" brings cupcakes to work on their birthday, and "everyone" eats one. Etc. That's been building for decades.
I'm not at heart a corporate conspiracy fan at all, but one very clever thing advertisers have done since my 1950s/60s childhood is paint the picture that everyone, especially happy, pretty people, are always eating and drinking. They do it on the commercials, they do it on the TV shows.
Cars didn't have 12 cupholders when i was a child - most didn't even have one - and not because we were all balancing ubiquitous sugary mega drink cups on our knees in the car. Drive-up food happened, we got commercials with cute families buying happy food for cheap (and easy), and cars got cupholders. For women, vanity sizing has helped disguise the slow creep of obesity. Your jeans wear out, you buy a new pair in the same size, and - ah! - they're just a little more comfy than the old pair. And you're about the same size as so many of the people around you, right? And just as active ("who's got time?!?")?
And that's not even getting into the influence of automation - at work, in home, in play - on the average person's NEAT over the last 50 years.
Unpopular opinion: People who think obesity is mostly about emotional eating are telling us something deeply repressed about their own attitudes toward food and eating.
This deeply repressed attitude that people like me allegedly have about food and eating has afflicted me great with eating habits, a healthy weight, and an excellent level of fitness
Glad to hear it - sincerely. I'd wish you and all here nothing less, since I'm enjoying those afflictions so much myself.
5 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »accidentalpancake 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.
You're missing out! Netflix has some great original content - I just wouldn't make life or health decisions based on anything I've seen
But, you'd look awesome in orange. 1 -
Cars didn't have 12 cupholders when i was a child - most didn't even have one - and not because we were all balancing ubiquitous sugary mega drink cups on our knees in the car. Drive-up food happened, we got commercials with cute families buying happy food for cheap (and easy), and cars got cupholders.
We didn't have cupholders built into our cars when I was a child but we did have those plastic cupholders that hung off the car window to hold our cans of soda.
While searching for that pic I came across an interesting article on the history of the car cupholder. In 1957 Cadillac had a car with a magnetic glove compartment that came with metal tumblers.
http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/the-history-of-the-car-cup-holder
6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Cars didn't have 12 cupholders when i was a child - most didn't even have one - and not because we were all balancing ubiquitous sugary mega drink cups on our knees in the car. Drive-up food happened, we got commercials with cute families buying happy food for cheap (and easy), and cars got cupholders.
We didn't have cupholders built into our cars when I was a child but we did have those plastic cupholders that hung off the car window to holder our cans of soda.
While searching for that pic I came across an interesting article on the history of the car cupholder. In 1957 Cadillac had a car with a magnetic glove compartment that came with metal tumblers.
http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/the-history-of-the-car-cup-holder
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/08/germanys-bmw-surrenders-to-usas-cupholder-fixation/1#.WYR3prFlChA
This is a funny article regarding BMW's and cup holders.
Driving on the Autobahn with both hands on the wheel is probably a good idea.1 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Cars didn't have 12 cupholders when i was a child - most didn't even have one - and not because we were all balancing ubiquitous sugary mega drink cups on our knees in the car. Drive-up food happened, we got commercials with cute families buying happy food for cheap (and easy), and cars got cupholders.
We didn't have cupholders built into our cars when I was a child but we did have those plastic cupholders that hung off the car window to holder our cans of soda.
While searching for that pic I came across an interesting article on the history of the car cupholder. In 1957 Cadillac had a car with a magnetic glove compartment that came with metal tumblers.
http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/the-history-of-the-car-cup-holder
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/08/germanys-bmw-surrenders-to-usas-cupholder-fixation/1#.WYR3prFlChA
This is a funny article regarding BMW's and cup holders.
Driving on the Autobahn with both hands on the wheel is probably a good idea.
My VW Jetta had two tiny cup holders that would only hold soda cans, nothing taller or wider. Nothing at all in the back seat. Drove me nuts. Doesn't BMW make VW?0 -
sophie9492015 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
Yeah okay so donuts and maccas fries arent fattening, right? If we ate these every day we would most likely put on weight if you eat an apple every day obviously not.
I think its a cop out the amount of people that say that sort of thing. *rolls eyes*
Obviously you wont gain weight if you maintain a balanced diet and stay in you calorie needa etc, but to say foods in generel aren't fattening is a cop out.
And sure maybe you are the 1 in a million person that isnt influenced by advertising.....
It is designed to influence us on so many levels obvious and subconsciously. You might not want to buy a big mac or a honda or a certain insurance policy emmidiately... but those messages stick with you wether you think its a cop out or not.
I eat a donut every Saturday morning (it's a tradition that my husband's grandfather has been doing for years). I ate that donut every week while thin, then overweight, then in my weight loss phase, then in the transition period between weight loss and maintenance, and now over 4 years into maintenance I still eat a donut every single Saturday, and will continue to do so until he passes away. A donut is made up of calories, just like every other food. I've learned how to fit the donut into my calorie targets, just like I've learned how to fit in the apples I eat, (which always include caramel dip lol).
As for advertising goes-no tv here, or FB, or delivery newspapers or magazines etc. I've even blocked the ads here on MFP. I'm a big kid now so I've figured out how to act like a grown up, most of the times 8 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Cars didn't have 12 cupholders when i was a child - most didn't even have one - and not because we were all balancing ubiquitous sugary mega drink cups on our knees in the car. Drive-up food happened, we got commercials with cute families buying happy food for cheap (and easy), and cars got cupholders.
We didn't have cupholders built into our cars when I was a child but we did have those plastic cupholders that hung off the car window to holder our cans of soda.
While searching for that pic I came across an interesting article on the history of the car cupholder. In 1957 Cadillac had a car with a magnetic glove compartment that came with metal tumblers.
http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/the-history-of-the-car-cup-holder
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/08/germanys-bmw-surrenders-to-usas-cupholder-fixation/1#.WYR3prFlChA
This is a funny article regarding BMW's and cup holders.
Driving on the Autobahn with both hands on the wheel is probably a good idea.
My VW Jetta had two tiny cup holders that would only hold soda cans, nothing taller or wider. Nothing at all in the back seat. Drove me nuts. Doesn't BMW make VW?
BMW owns Mini and Rolls Royce. VW owns even more but not BMW.
3 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
Yeah okay so donuts and maccas fries arent fattening, right? If we ate these every day we would most likely put on weight if you eat an apple every day obviously not.
I think its a cop out the amount of people that say that sort of thing. *rolls eyes*
Obviously you wont gain weight if you maintain a balanced diet and stay in you calorie needa etc, but to say foods in generel aren't fattening is a cop out.
And sure maybe you are the 1 in a million person that isnt influenced by advertising.....
It is designed to influence us on so many levels obvious and subconsciously. You might not want to buy a big mac or a honda or a certain insurance policy emmidiately... but those messages stick with you wether you think its a cop out or not.
I eat a donut every Saturday morning (it's a tradition that my husband's grandfather has been doing for years). I ate that donut every week while thin, then overweight, then in my weight loss phase, then in the transition period between weight loss and maintenance, and now over 4 years into maintenance I still eat a donut every single Saturday, and will continue to do so until he passes away. A donut is made up of calories, just like every other food. I've learned how to fit the donut into my calorie targets, just like I've learned how to fit in the apples I eat, (which always include caramel dip lol).
As for advertising goes-no tv here, or FB, or delivery newspapers or magazines etc. I've even blocked the ads here on MFP. I'm a big kid now so I've figured out how to act like a grown up, most of the times
Eating one donut a week isn't really comparable to eating donuts and macca fries (whatever that is) every day. Not saying there is anything wrong with either, just saying they are pretty different.1 -
+1. It's like when people say "I'm eating cauliflower pizza". IT AIN'T PIZZA if it's cauliflower.All of this dairy talk brings up an unpopular opinion that I have:
I hate the very concept of alternative milks. Okay, I get it, if you have a medical reason and can't process dairy then use the almond/soy/cashew or whatever milk in your smoothie/coffee/cereal, etc. Or, get Lactiad. I've seen nothing that convinces me that they are healthier or better alternatives to plain ol' dairy. They may be lower calories, but that doesn't automatically make them more nutritious.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
How about when people go on about a meatless lasagna.
Ah, you mean a casserole.
I'm Sicilian so that really offends me... lol!4 -
Thing I learned. VW owns Porsche. Huh.3
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
Yeah okay so donuts and maccas fries arent fattening, right? If we ate these every day we would most likely put on weight if you eat an apple every day obviously not.
I think its a cop out the amount of people that say that sort of thing. *rolls eyes*
Obviously you wont gain weight if you maintain a balanced diet and stay in you calorie needa etc, but to say foods in generel aren't fattening is a cop out.
And sure maybe you are the 1 in a million person that isnt influenced by advertising.....
It is designed to influence us on so many levels obvious and subconsciously. You might not want to buy a big mac or a honda or a certain insurance policy emmidiately... but those messages stick with you wether you think its a cop out or not.
I eat a donut every Saturday morning (it's a tradition that my husband's grandfather has been doing for years). I ate that donut every week while thin, then overweight, then in my weight loss phase, then in the transition period between weight loss and maintenance, and now over 4 years into maintenance I still eat a donut every single Saturday, and will continue to do so until he passes away. A donut is made up of calories, just like every other food. I've learned how to fit the donut into my calorie targets, just like I've learned how to fit in the apples I eat, (which always include caramel dip lol).
As for advertising goes-no tv here, or FB, or delivery newspapers or magazines etc. I've even blocked the ads here on MFP. I'm a big kid now so I've figured out how to act like a grown up, most of the times
Eating one donut a week isn't really comparable to eating donuts and macca fries (whatever that is) every day. Not saying there is anything wrong with either, just saying they are pretty different.
I think Maccas is the Australian slang for McDonalds but I could be wrong. It's what I've gleaned from discussions on these boards over the years.
Also there are good examples posted on the forums of people who temporarily engage in a primarily or exclusively "junk food diet" with no adverse effects for weight or health markers, in fact most continued to see improvements in whatever goal they were striving for.
6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
Yeah okay so donuts and maccas fries arent fattening, right? If we ate these every day we would most likely put on weight if you eat an apple every day obviously not.
I think its a cop out the amount of people that say that sort of thing. *rolls eyes*
Obviously you wont gain weight if you maintain a balanced diet and stay in you calorie needa etc, but to say foods in generel aren't fattening is a cop out.
And sure maybe you are the 1 in a million person that isnt influenced by advertising.....
It is designed to influence us on so many levels obvious and subconsciously. You might not want to buy a big mac or a honda or a certain insurance policy emmidiately... but those messages stick with you wether you think its a cop out or not.
I eat a donut every Saturday morning (it's a tradition that my husband's grandfather has been doing for years). I ate that donut every week while thin, then overweight, then in my weight loss phase, then in the transition period between weight loss and maintenance, and now over 4 years into maintenance I still eat a donut every single Saturday, and will continue to do so until he passes away. A donut is made up of calories, just like every other food. I've learned how to fit the donut into my calorie targets, just like I've learned how to fit in the apples I eat, (which always include caramel dip lol).
As for advertising goes-no tv here, or FB, or delivery newspapers or magazines etc. I've even blocked the ads here on MFP. I'm a big kid now so I've figured out how to act like a grown up, most of the times
Eating one donut a week isn't really comparable to eating donuts and macca fries (whatever that is) every day. Not saying there is anything wrong with either, just saying they are pretty different.
I think Maccas is the Australian slang for McDonalds but I could be wrong. It's what I've gleaned from discussions on these boards over the years.
Also there are good examples posted on the forums of people who temporarily engage in a primarily or exclusively "junk food diet" with no adverse effects for weight or health markers, in fact most continued to see improvements in whatever goal they were striving for.
Haha yeah, Maccas is slang for Mcdonalds here. It's so wide spread that Mcdonalds actually changed some of their signage to it2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
Yeah okay so donuts and maccas fries arent fattening, right? If we ate these every day we would most likely put on weight if you eat an apple every day obviously not.
I think its a cop out the amount of people that say that sort of thing. *rolls eyes*
Obviously you wont gain weight if you maintain a balanced diet and stay in you calorie needa etc, but to say foods in generel aren't fattening is a cop out.
And sure maybe you are the 1 in a million person that isnt influenced by advertising.....
It is designed to influence us on so many levels obvious and subconsciously. You might not want to buy a big mac or a honda or a certain insurance policy emmidiately... but those messages stick with you wether you think its a cop out or not.
I eat a donut every Saturday morning (it's a tradition that my husband's grandfather has been doing for years). I ate that donut every week while thin, then overweight, then in my weight loss phase, then in the transition period between weight loss and maintenance, and now over 4 years into maintenance I still eat a donut every single Saturday, and will continue to do so until he passes away. A donut is made up of calories, just like every other food. I've learned how to fit the donut into my calorie targets, just like I've learned how to fit in the apples I eat, (which always include caramel dip lol).
As for advertising goes-no tv here, or FB, or delivery newspapers or magazines etc. I've even blocked the ads here on MFP. I'm a big kid now so I've figured out how to act like a grown up, most of the times
Eating one donut a week isn't really comparable to eating donuts and macca fries (whatever that is) every day. Not saying there is anything wrong with either, just saying they are pretty different.
I think Maccas is the Australian slang for McDonalds but I could be wrong. It's what I've gleaned from discussions on these boards over the years.
Also there are good examples posted on the forums of people who temporarily engage in a primarily or exclusively "junk food diet" with no adverse effects for weight or health markers, in fact most continued to see improvements in whatever goal they were striving for.
Interesting. What is the reasoning behind the junk food only diet? I realize you are talking about others and may not know, just curious.0 -
Mine is that CICO isn't always a firm rule. You diet all your life, constantly going from one plan to another, you lose, you gain, you lose, you gain... and then you hit your elderly years. Guess what? CICO no longer rules like it did when you were younger. Your body has gotten used to your fickle ways, and now will turn every bite that enters your mouth into fat, because it KNOWS you're going to starve it again. Getting the weight to finally start to melt from an elderly, slowed down metabolism can be pure HELL! So there ya go, that's my unpopular opinion.34
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »sophie9492015 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?
So am I, who stated that?
What is your point?
I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.
You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.
Why?
Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?
I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?
Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.
You might want to do some soul searching.
There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.
You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.
The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.
For some people.
Not all.
This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.
OR..
Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?
So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?
They don't move and eat too many calories
Surely not the only reason, but couldn't emotional eating be the reason some of the overweight and obese eat too many calories?
Some != "epidemic"
Because we live in a very fast paced and lazy society. And fattening foods are so easily and quickly available...... oh and the advertiaing we are subjected to.
foods in general are not "fattening" it's the amount of food we eat that makes us fat and lack of movement...
As for the "advertiaing" please we are all grown ups and get to choose what we put in our mouth...*rolls eyes* that sounds like a cop out to me....
Yeah okay so donuts and maccas fries arent fattening, right? If we ate these every day we would most likely put on weight if you eat an apple every day obviously not.
I think its a cop out the amount of people that say that sort of thing. *rolls eyes*
Obviously you wont gain weight if you maintain a balanced diet and stay in you calorie needa etc, but to say foods in generel aren't fattening is a cop out.
And sure maybe you are the 1 in a million person that isnt influenced by advertising.....
It is designed to influence us on so many levels obvious and subconsciously. You might not want to buy a big mac or a honda or a certain insurance policy emmidiately... but those messages stick with you wether you think its a cop out or not.
I eat a donut every Saturday morning (it's a tradition that my husband's grandfather has been doing for years). I ate that donut every week while thin, then overweight, then in my weight loss phase, then in the transition period between weight loss and maintenance, and now over 4 years into maintenance I still eat a donut every single Saturday, and will continue to do so until he passes away. A donut is made up of calories, just like every other food. I've learned how to fit the donut into my calorie targets, just like I've learned how to fit in the apples I eat, (which always include caramel dip lol).
As for advertising goes-no tv here, or FB, or delivery newspapers or magazines etc. I've even blocked the ads here on MFP. I'm a big kid now so I've figured out how to act like a grown up, most of the times
Eating one donut a week isn't really comparable to eating donuts and macca fries (whatever that is) every day. Not saying there is anything wrong with either, just saying they are pretty different.
I think Maccas is the Australian slang for McDonalds but I could be wrong. It's what I've gleaned from discussions on these boards over the years.
Also there are good examples posted on the forums of people who temporarily engage in a primarily or exclusively "junk food diet" with no adverse effects for weight or health markers, in fact most continued to see improvements in whatever goal they were striving for.
Interesting. What is the reasoning behind the junk food only diet? I realize you are talking about others and may not know, just curious.
The examples I've seen (and I'm on my phone so I can't link to them right now) were meant as an experiment to disprove the concept that it's impossible to lose weight and/or be healthy while eating a significant amount of calorie dense foods. Often when the discussion of "CICO is all that matters for weight loss" comes up, people chime in and say things like "well you may lose weight but you certainly won't be healthy". The experiences of the posters I've seen demonstrated improvement in health markers and the fast food thread was a good demonstration that just because you eat fast food doesn't mean it is all burgers fries and milkshakes. Both had open diaries and well documented numbers, photos and results.9 -
Yeah I hate it when I accidentally float away because my body has gotten used to gravity.19
-
poisonesse wrote: »Mine is that CICO isn't always a firm rule. You diet all your life, constantly going from one plan to another, you lose, you gain, you lose, you gain... and then you hit your elderly years. Guess what? CICO no longer rules like it did when you were younger. Your body has gotten used to your fickle ways, and now will turn every bite that enters your mouth into fat, because it KNOWS you're going to starve it again. Getting the weight to finally start to melt from an elderly, slowed down metabolism can be pure HELL! So there ya go, that's my unpopular opinion.
Then maybe rather than yo yo dieting, people should find a way of eating that enables them to eat a variety of foods they enjoy within the context of an appropriate number of calories to avoid these swings in weight that result in having to repeatedly take a short term drastic approach? That doesn't negate CICO by the way....15 -
WinoGelato wrote: »poisonesse wrote: »Mine is that CICO isn't always a firm rule. You diet all your life, constantly going from one plan to another, you lose, you gain, you lose, you gain... and then you hit your elderly years. Guess what? CICO no longer rules like it did when you were younger. Your body has gotten used to your fickle ways, and now will turn every bite that enters your mouth into fat, because it KNOWS you're going to starve it again. Getting the weight to finally start to melt from an elderly, slowed down metabolism can be pure HELL! So there ya go, that's my unpopular opinion.
Then maybe rather than yo yo dieting, people should find a way of eating that enables them to eat a variety of foods they enjoy within the context of an appropriate number of calories to avoid these swings in weight that result in having to repeatedly take a short term drastic approach? That doesn't negate CICO by the way....
I missed an opportunity to preach? Whew, glad Wino caught this.
I'm elderly, sort of. 63.
I lost weight twice. Once due to illness and once on purpose. This "on purpose" time started when I was 53. I lost 70ish pounds. I've kept it off. CICO baby, that's all I did.
I even get to eat 1800-2300 calories a day as a 5'7" woman. I call BS on the original post of CICO isn't a firm rule. I've maintained my weight by logging food and exercise. I eat all the foods (meaning anything I want, like ice cream and wings.)20 -
WinoGelato wrote: »poisonesse wrote: »Mine is that CICO isn't always a firm rule. You diet all your life, constantly going from one plan to another, you lose, you gain, you lose, you gain... and then you hit your elderly years. Guess what? CICO no longer rules like it did when you were younger. Your body has gotten used to your fickle ways, and now will turn every bite that enters your mouth into fat, because it KNOWS you're going to starve it again. Getting the weight to finally start to melt from an elderly, slowed down metabolism can be pure HELL! So there ya go, that's my unpopular opinion.
Then maybe rather than yo yo dieting, people should find a way of eating that enables them to eat a variety of foods they enjoy within the context of an appropriate number of calories to avoid these swings in weight that result in having to repeatedly take a short term drastic approach? That doesn't negate CICO by the way....
QFT!5 -
poisonesse wrote: »Mine is that CICO isn't always a firm rule. You diet all your life, constantly going from one plan to another, you lose, you gain, you lose, you gain... and then you hit your elderly years. Guess what? CICO no longer rules like it did when you were younger. Your body has gotten used to your fickle ways, and now will turn every bite that enters your mouth into fat, because it KNOWS you're going to starve it again. Getting the weight to finally start to melt from an elderly, slowed down metabolism can be pure HELL! So there ya go, that's my unpopular opinion.
This is an unpopular opinion because it's incorrectly stated. CICO still works even in the frail elderly with lower than average metabolic rate. It's just the calorie calculators and charts stating how much a person of that size should eat no longer fit, which can seem like CICO doesn't work but that actually not the case. They just have a lower than average CO so they need a lower than average CI to match.
This can be reversed even at an advanced age. My elderly mother is just finding this out after cardiac rehab. Once she realized that if she exercises right after she eats sugary snacks her blood glucose won't spike (she is diabetic) she jumps on her treadmill or exercise bike several times a day and now can eat and (more importantly) do more than she has in many years. Plus, she's lowered her DM meds significantly and her endocrinologist said if she keeps it up she'll may take her off them entirely.
You are never too old!19
This discussion has been closed.
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