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?

1…131132134136137…239

Replies

  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,213 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    goldthistime wrote: »
    Previously the answer would probably be trans fats. Now that trans fats have been removed from the vast majority of packaged foods the many studies that referenced processed foods or convenience foods or any grouping of foods that once upon a time contained trans fats and now don't, are no longer valid. Negative association lingers I guess.

    But there's also possibly excessive sodium, omega 6 fats, and the fact that many of those foods have been engineered so as to be dangerously desirable to your average Jane/Joe as well as not satiating (low fibre and low protein).

    But obviously if one is concerned about these things one can avoid foods that don't contain them in excessive amounts/pose an issue. Once again, the ingredients vary quite a lot. I continue to not understand the point of generalizing.

    As for the "engineering," I think we should be clear what we are talking about. Are these foods somehow more delicious and hard to resist than those from a good (high quality ingredients, good chef) restaurant? Or homemade by a good cook? No. Will a home cook or restaurant chef trying to increase flavor also use similar ingredients (butter, butter, butter, salt, sugar in the right dishes, etc.)? Absolutely.

    So what is the deal with this SUBSET of processed foods that is being focused on? Increasing knowledge/skill at using cheap ingredients to better mimic the taste/satisfaction of home cooked indulgences in a product that is also shelf stable and affordable. So ultimately it comes down not to the foods being dramatically different or harder to resist (I just don't believe that store-bought cakes and cookies and pies are harder to stop eating than homemade versions, same with chips, fries, frozen pizza, fast food, etc.). It's super available and cheap compared to the alternative (which involves some time commitment and knowing how to cook and so isn't as likely to be snacked on all day or impulse purchased for "I'm tired and had a bad day" kinds of reasons). I think when we try to pretend it's about some bad effect of the processing we miss this (or pretend it's not about our choices and what we can and cannot control but "the food caused it.")


    I agree, I don't think most processed foods are more delicious than those prepared by a good cook. I wasn't consciously trying to infer evilness when I said "engineered". Although I do think trying to manufacture a food product as cheaply as possible and with as long a shelf life as possible might lead to the choice of ingredients that are less than healthful. Palm oil comes to mind. A little off topic, but your comment about prepared cookies and pies reminded me that although almost everything in the grocery store no longer contains trans fats, I have wondered if the same could be said for pies and pastries produced in smaller bakeries.

    Back to the idea that the suggestion by some to avoid processed foods is a generalization that may be more harmful than helpful. I can't recall singling out processed foods personally, but it also hasn't bothered me when I've read others do it. Is there a shortcut way of more accurately expressing a similar sentiment?

    Like "limit non-satiating low nutrient foods, especially those containing excessive sodium, or fats like palm oil, coconut oil, or other vegetable oils containing omega 6's"?

    Your personal policy of avoiding snacks lemurcat12 sets you up for success by automatically limiting your consumption of snack foods. How do you feel about a comment like "limit snack foods" instead of "limit processed food"?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited August 2017
    goldthistime wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    goldthistime wrote: »
    Previously the answer would probably be trans fats. Now that trans fats have been removed from the vast majority of packaged foods the many studies that referenced processed foods or convenience foods or any grouping of foods that once upon a time contained trans fats and now don't, are no longer valid. Negative association lingers I guess.

    But there's also possibly excessive sodium, omega 6 fats, and the fact that many of those foods have been engineered so as to be dangerously desirable to your average Jane/Joe as well as not satiating (low fibre and low protein).

    But obviously if one is concerned about these things one can avoid foods that don't contain them in excessive amounts/pose an issue. Once again, the ingredients vary quite a lot. I continue to not understand the point of generalizing.

    As for the "engineering," I think we should be clear what we are talking about. Are these foods somehow more delicious and hard to resist than those from a good (high quality ingredients, good chef) restaurant? Or homemade by a good cook? No. Will a home cook or restaurant chef trying to increase flavor also use similar ingredients (butter, butter, butter, salt, sugar in the right dishes, etc.)? Absolutely.

    So what is the deal with this SUBSET of processed foods that is being focused on? Increasing knowledge/skill at using cheap ingredients to better mimic the taste/satisfaction of home cooked indulgences in a product that is also shelf stable and affordable. So ultimately it comes down not to the foods being dramatically different or harder to resist (I just don't believe that store-bought cakes and cookies and pies are harder to stop eating than homemade versions, same with chips, fries, frozen pizza, fast food, etc.). It's super available and cheap compared to the alternative (which involves some time commitment and knowing how to cook and so isn't as likely to be snacked on all day or impulse purchased for "I'm tired and had a bad day" kinds of reasons). I think when we try to pretend it's about some bad effect of the processing we miss this (or pretend it's not about our choices and what we can and cannot control but "the food caused it.")

    I agree, I don't think most processed foods are more delicious than those prepared by a good cook. I wasn't consciously trying to infer evilness when I said "engineered". Although I do think trying to manufacture a food product as cheaply as possible and with as long a shelf life as possible might lead to the choice of ingredients that are less than healthful. Palm oil comes to mind. A little off topic, but your comment about prepared cookies and pies reminded me that although almost everything in the grocery store no longer contains trans fats, I have wondered if the same could be said for pies and pastries produced in smaller bakeries.

    Back to the idea that the suggestion by some to avoid processed foods is a generalization that may be more harmful than helpful. I can't recall singling out processed foods personally, but it also hasn't bothered me when I've read others do it. Is there a shortcut way of more accurately expressing a similar sentiment?

    Like "limit non-satiating low nutrient foods, especially those containing excessive sodium, or fats like palm oil, coconut oil, or other vegetable oils containing omega 6's"?

    Your personal policy of avoiding snacks lemurcat12 sets you up for success by automatically limiting your consumption of snack foods. How do you feel about a comment like "limit snack foods" instead of "limit processed food"?

    Well, I also avoid (well, this implies effort, more accurately just never bother to eat) most so-called convenience foods and ultra processed foods just because I enjoy cooking, they tend not to have as much protein/veg as I like (although there are exceptions), and my own cooking tastes better to me. I plan ahead to have fast options that fit my preferences (leftovers, mainly). I do buy lunch too often, but I choose things similar to what I would make if I made it myself (there's a really good salad bar place near my office, for example).

    I happen to agree (but I would) that limiting snack foods is more to the point, not because they can't be part of a healthy diet, but people not tracking often consume them in addition to meals that should in theory be sufficient, just because they are there, tasty, and these days expected.

    I avoid palm oil and various other types of added fats (I'm not going to preach it to others or defend my position which is not adequately researched, but I am skeptical of a lot of ultra processed vegetable oils that get used as additives in some processed foods). With palm oil I think there's a strong ethical reason to avoid it, so stick to that more seriously than some other "I generally choose not to eat them" things, but again MANY processed foods don't have such ingredients. Chips (to pick a snack food) are easy to find without it. I just checked Kettle baked olive oil chips (I don't really buy chips, since I prefer to have my potato and fat indulgence for rare fries as a restaurant that makes really good ones, and I don't personally consider any deep fried foods anything other than an indulgence, whether prepared at home or not) and, as expected, they were potatoes, olive oil, sea salt, flavoring. Pasta is a common example of a processed food, and it has no fat (and is really just wheat flour and water). Protein powder is processed, and again generally no added fat at all.

    Re transfats and small bakeries, if it's a good bakery I tend to assume they will use butter -- the switch to transfat was always based on alleged health and ease of use in processed foods, NOT taste. But depends on the place (I generally have a rule of forgoing baked goods unless homebaked by me or someone I know, not for health reasons, but because it acts as a limiter. Luckily I am lazy and enjoy cooking more than baking, even when bingeing on that British Baking Show.) ;-)

    Anyway, I do weird things to limit calories, so absolutely don't criticize others who do similar things (or different weird things). My only criticism is of the idea that just being "processed" saying anything about the nutritional content of a food, makes the food "unhealthy" or "bad," or makes it somehow harder to overeat (or in some cases more delicious than homemade, which I just think is false, period). Also, and this is really significant to me, people who choose not to eat these foods (whatever ones are being discussed) looking down on people who do or proclaiming in various threads that others should cut out processed foods or suggesting that people who don't don't care about health make me angry, as it's not true, and often the people who include some packaged foods of the type being called processed have overall HEALTHIER diets, in part because for them the foods make it easier. And the folks (often newbies) going on about processed foods not only (from what I see) often ARE eating them, but are lacking other things important in a healthful diet, like more than a bare minimum of vegetables.

    I think abundance and availability and a food culture that promotes constant eating (often of snack foods) is related to the presence of lots of shelf-stable, tasty foods, but does not mean that those foods are somehow less healthful than homemade counterparts would be or in themselves (vs. being overeaten) causing obesity.
  • Jonesuna64
    Jonesuna64 Posts: 233 Member
    Heather4448 wrote: »
    Jonesuna64 wrote: »
    What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

    Eat Less
    Exercise

    BURN THE WITCH!

    :)
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ...also, trying to lift one's breasts to "deduct " them from one's weight is hard to do. It involves a towel rack and some scale-dancing and it looks utterly ridiculous.


    A friend told me. :neutral:

    Bwaaahahaha!! You win the internet!! One of the greatest post evah!
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ...also, trying to lift one's breasts to "deduct " them from one's weight is hard to do. It involves a towel rack and some scale-dancing and it looks utterly ridiculous.


    A friend told me. :neutral:

    Wouldn't using a kitchen scale while seated be more useful?
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ...also, trying to lift one's breasts to "deduct " them from one's weight is hard to do. It involves a towel rack and some scale-dancing and it looks utterly ridiculous.


    A friend told me. :neutral:

    Wouldn't using a kitchen scale while seated be more useful?

    Or more comfortable at least.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ...also, trying to lift one's breasts to "deduct " them from one's weight is hard to do. It involves a towel rack and some scale-dancing and it looks utterly ridiculous.


    A friend told me. :neutral:

    Bwaaahahaha!! You win the internet!! One of the greatest post evah!

    I just get the hubster to stand behind me and provide *ahem* support. He doesn't mind.

    Lol, yeah i'm guessing he doesn't..... ;)
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,202 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    ...also, trying to lift one's breasts to "deduct " them from one's weight is hard to do. It involves a towel rack and some scale-dancing and it looks utterly ridiculous.


    A friend told me. :neutral:

    Bwaaahahaha!! You win the internet!! One of the greatest post evah!

    I just get the hubster to stand behind me and provide *ahem* support. He doesn't mind.

    Better than one of my cats stepping on the scale while I am weighing and adding a portion of his 13 lb

    Yeah, I had one of mine do that the other day! Little jerk...
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    Yeah, I had one of mine do that the other day! Little jerk...

    reminds me of one of the reasons why my weight got away from me in my 40's. i didn't have a scale, but any time i took the cat to the vet i'd wait for that 'the doctor will be right in' moment and then hop on their giant-dog scale just to see what i weighed.

    then she died, and i kind of lost track of my weight.
  • Sp1tfire
    Sp1tfire Posts: 1,120 Member
    I hate food waste due to over-purchasing at the grocery store, especially since my family members have a tendency to over-purchase. I've literally been at the store with him and say "We really only need 2 lbs" and he says "OH BUT ITS GREAT LEFTOVERS" then he doesn't touch the leftovers all week because he's 'tired of it' , they go bad, and I throw it all out to the chickens. The cycle continues.

    I don't mind situations like a restaurants before a movie, or in cases where leftovers are really miniscule or impractical to save.
  • jseams1234
    jseams1234 Posts: 1,219 Member
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Anon2018 wrote: »
    When overweight people claim "I'm trying to eat 1500 calories but I'm just omg so full at 1100" on MFP I simply don't believe me. There's no way you became obese or overweight because you feel like you're stuffing your face on 1100-1300 calories

    This usually has to do with the person rapidly and radically changing the way they were eating. They stop eating a diet of unsatiating, calorie-dense foods and fill their diet with a lot of fresh veggies/fruit/whole foods that are much more nutrient dense and filling. The feeling doesn't last long, but it is real.

    I'm not sure how "nutrient dense" a pound of Kale is but I do agree it is probably very filling. lol
  • Ruatine
    Ruatine Posts: 3,424 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Anon2018 wrote: »
    When overweight people claim "I'm trying to eat 1500 calories but I'm just omg so full at 1100" on MFP I simply don't believe me. There's no way you became obese or overweight because you feel like you're stuffing your face on 1100-1300 calories

    This usually has to do with the person rapidly and radically changing the way they were eating. They stop eating a diet of unsatiating, calorie-dense foods and fill their diet with a lot of fresh veggies/fruit/whole foods that are much more nutrient dense and filling. The feeling doesn't last long, but it is real.

    I'm not sure how "nutrient dense" a pound of Kale is but I do agree it is probably very filling. lol

    Well, hopefully people aren't trying to eat a pound of kale.... :sick: but, I guess you never know. People do weird *kitten*.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Ruatine wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Anon2018 wrote: »
    When overweight people claim "I'm trying to eat 1500 calories but I'm just omg so full at 1100" on MFP I simply don't believe me. There's no way you became obese or overweight because you feel like you're stuffing your face on 1100-1300 calories

    This usually has to do with the person rapidly and radically changing the way they were eating. They stop eating a diet of unsatiating, calorie-dense foods and fill their diet with a lot of fresh veggies/fruit/whole foods that are much more nutrient dense and filling. The feeling doesn't last long, but it is real.

    I'm not sure how "nutrient dense" a pound of Kale is but I do agree it is probably very filling. lol

    Well, hopefully people aren't trying to eat a pound of kale.... :sick: but, I guess you never know. People do weird *kitten*.

    That is the goal for many people from what I've seen. The more vegetables the better. The more volume of food for the least amount of calories the better.

    It actually took a pretty big leap of faith to reject that dieter mentality and to focus on high calorie, nourishing foods that were satiating instead of the eat-more-for-less-calories idea that's prevalent.
  • timeisfiction
    timeisfiction Posts: 25 Member
    I believe that if you are going to take a supplement for something specific, you should also be putting in all of the work behind the scenes to use it as a benefit and not a crutch. Example: people taking exogenous ketone supplements when they don't even eat a keto diet (and other situations similar).
  • jasummers76
    jasummers76 Posts: 225 Member
    I think if done correctly with a ethical doctor gastric surgery and prescription diet pills are a wonderful tool. With that being said if your doctor is not doing regular blood work, weighing you, having you see a nutrionist, and encourageing a more active lifestyle. I am against it. There are Diet Doctors around here who only prescribe pills and do nothing more, they over charge for meds and do not ask for blood work to see if there could be a underlying health issue. They also will just keep writing prescriptions for longer than the recommended time which is usually a few months.
  • Ruatine
    Ruatine Posts: 3,424 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AlabasterVerve wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Anon2018 wrote: »
    When overweight people claim "I'm trying to eat 1500 calories but I'm just omg so full at 1100" on MFP I simply don't believe me. There's no way you became obese or overweight because you feel like you're stuffing your face on 1100-1300 calories

    This usually has to do with the person rapidly and radically changing the way they were eating. They stop eating a diet of unsatiating, calorie-dense foods and fill their diet with a lot of fresh veggies/fruit/whole foods that are much more nutrient dense and filling. The feeling doesn't last long, but it is real.

    I'm not sure how "nutrient dense" a pound of Kale is but I do agree it is probably very filling. lol

    Well, hopefully people aren't trying to eat a pound of kale.... :sick: but, I guess you never know. People do weird *kitten*.

    That is the goal for many people from what I've seen. The more vegetables the better. The more volume of food for the least amount of calories the better.

    It actually took a pretty big leap of faith to reject that dieter mentality and to focus on high calorie, nourishing foods that were satiating instead of the eat-more-for-less-calories idea that's prevalent.

    Not necessarily a "dieter mentality" we all need to reject.

    I just like veggies very, very much - not a new thing - and find them very satiating. I think some people, via changing what they eat to be healthier & more satiating to them while calorie-counting, discover that they really like them, too.

    Bonus: They're good for us, as well as delicious.

    I don't understand how some people "hate all vegetables": they're so diverse. But I concede that life is too short to eat food that doesn't taste good. Everyone needs to find their personal balance.

    Within the context of an overall balanced diet, what any individual enjoys and finds satiating is just a personal preference, not a moral success/failing.

    So agree with this!
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,156 Member
    <curmudgeon mode>
    I'm not saying it's common, but I believe it's possible to lose weight with MFP, without reading comprehension, logic, or the ability to do arithmetic (let alone algebra or statistics). May be harder, though . . especially the arithmetic.
    </curmudgeon>

    This is explicitly not in response to any particular post on this or any other thread. Its just an old crank's opinion.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    AlabasterVerve wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    Ruatine wrote: »
    Anon2018 wrote: »
    When overweight people claim "I'm trying to eat 1500 calories but I'm just omg so full at 1100" on MFP I simply don't believe me. There's no way you became obese or overweight because you feel like you're stuffing your face on 1100-1300 calories

    This usually has to do with the person rapidly and radically changing the way they were eating. They stop eating a diet of unsatiating, calorie-dense foods and fill their diet with a lot of fresh veggies/fruit/whole foods that are much more nutrient dense and filling. The feeling doesn't last long, but it is real.

    I'm not sure how "nutrient dense" a pound of Kale is but I do agree it is probably very filling. lol

    Well, hopefully people aren't trying to eat a pound of kale.... :sick: but, I guess you never know. People do weird *kitten*.

    That is the goal for many people from what I've seen. The more vegetables the better. The more volume of food for the least amount of calories the better.

    It actually took a pretty big leap of faith to reject that dieter mentality and to focus on high calorie, nourishing foods that were satiating instead of the eat-more-for-less-calories idea that's prevalent.

    Not necessarily a "dieter mentality" we all need to reject.

    Of course not - nothing applies to everyone. But for me, focusing on what foods I could eat for low or no calories was born from calorie counting and following the conventional eat-this-not-that type of advice. That sort of thinking was wrongheaded, ultimately counter productive and a dieting mentality I needed to move beyond to be successful.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories