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
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
no where in my post do I say sedentary but exercise is not a requirement to be healthy.
movement is a good thing but purposeful exercise is not a requirement for health...2 -
SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
Personally I don't go for the all or nothing mentality. As life changes so do one's priorities. I believe in keeping a top 5 list. The top 5 may change their order but they will generally be up there...
I don't either...and I think that priorities are a fluid thing as well.
Mine change...I used to garden a lot and pickle..it was a priority...not so much now...top 10 but eh.
Exercise top 5...but it might slip down the list it would depend on the circumstance0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
no where in my post do I say sedentary but exercise is not a requirement to be healthy.
movement is a good thing but purposeful exercise is not a requirement for health...
*shrug* tomato tomahto. Activity is exercise. If you aren't getting it you are sedentary.3 -
SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
Personally I don't go for the all or nothing mentality. As life changes so do one's priorities. I believe in keeping a top 5 list. The top 5 may change their order but they will generally be up there...
I don't either...and I think that priorities are a fluid thing as well.
Mine change...I used to garden a lot and pickle..it was a priority...not so much now...top 10 but eh.
Exercise top 5...but it might slip down the list it would depend on the circumstance
I don't even consider exercise something that is subject to re-prioritizing in my life, it is mandatory, like showering, brushing my teeth, clipping my nails, etc. The priorities within my exercise program (the types of exercises that I do) has and will change as my goals and capabilities change.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
no where in my post do I say sedentary but exercise is not a requirement to be healthy.
movement is a good thing but purposeful exercise is not a requirement for health...
*shrug* tomato tomahto. Activity is exercise. If you aren't getting it you are sedentary.
not in the context of my post...your way is a simplification and imo is faulty. Sedentary is too much time seated....but you don't need to exercise to not be sedentary.
ex·er·cise
ˈeksərˌsīz/Submit
noun
1.
activity requiring physical effort, carried out especially to sustain or improve health and fitness.
I can be active by having a job as a waitress, postal carrier...doesn't mean I am unhealthy because I go home and don't exercise...
I can be active as a desk jockey too by taking the stairs or going to an office instead of emailing...but that is not exercise
again...you don't need to exercise to be healthy.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
no where in my post do I say sedentary but exercise is not a requirement to be healthy.
movement is a good thing but purposeful exercise is not a requirement for health...
*shrug* tomato tomahto. Activity is exercise. If you aren't getting it you are sedentary.
not in the context of my post...your way is a simplification and imo is faulty. Sedentary is too much time seated....but you don't need to exercise to not be sedentary.
ex·er·cise
ˈeksərˌsīz/Submit
noun
1.
activity requiring physical effort, carried out especially to sustain or improve health and fitness.
I can be active by having a job as a waitress, postal carrier...doesn't mean I am unhealthy because I go home and don't exercise...
I can be active as a desk jockey too by taking the stairs or going to an office instead of emailing...but that is not exercise
again...you don't need to exercise to be healthy.
Agree to disagree
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exercise
Definition of exercise
2 a : regular or repeated use of a faculty or bodily organ1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
no where in my post do I say sedentary but exercise is not a requirement to be healthy.
movement is a good thing but purposeful exercise is not a requirement for health...
*shrug* tomato tomahto. Activity is exercise. If you aren't getting it you are sedentary.
not in the context of my post...your way is a simplification and imo is faulty. Sedentary is too much time seated....but you don't need to exercise to not be sedentary.
ex·er·cise
ˈeksərˌsīz/Submit
noun
1.
activity requiring physical effort, carried out especially to sustain or improve health and fitness.
I can be active by having a job as a waitress, postal carrier...doesn't mean I am unhealthy because I go home and don't exercise...
I can be active as a desk jockey too by taking the stairs or going to an office instead of emailing...but that is not exercise
again...you don't need to exercise to be healthy.
The original post to which you had responded specified activity, not exercise; I thing the change-up in terms had muddied the discussion a bit.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
no where in my post do I say sedentary but exercise is not a requirement to be healthy.
movement is a good thing but purposeful exercise is not a requirement for health...
*shrug* tomato tomahto. Activity is exercise. If you aren't getting it you are sedentary.
not in the context of my post...your way is a simplification and imo is faulty. Sedentary is too much time seated....but you don't need to exercise to not be sedentary.
ex·er·cise
ˈeksərˌsīz/Submit
noun
1.
activity requiring physical effort, carried out especially to sustain or improve health and fitness.
I can be active by having a job as a waitress, postal carrier...doesn't mean I am unhealthy because I go home and don't exercise...
I can be active as a desk jockey too by taking the stairs or going to an office instead of emailing...but that is not exercise
again...you don't need to exercise to be healthy.
Agree to disagree
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exercise
Definition of exercise
2 a : regular or repeated use of a faculty or bodily organ
or 2b
2
a : regular or repeated use of a faculty or bodily organ
b : bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness trying to get more exercise1 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
no where in my post do I say sedentary but exercise is not a requirement to be healthy.
movement is a good thing but purposeful exercise is not a requirement for health...
*shrug* tomato tomahto. Activity is exercise. If you aren't getting it you are sedentary.
not in the context of my post...your way is a simplification and imo is faulty. Sedentary is too much time seated....but you don't need to exercise to not be sedentary.
ex·er·cise
ˈeksərˌsīz/Submit
noun
1.
activity requiring physical effort, carried out especially to sustain or improve health and fitness.
I can be active by having a job as a waitress, postal carrier...doesn't mean I am unhealthy because I go home and don't exercise...
I can be active as a desk jockey too by taking the stairs or going to an office instead of emailing...but that is not exercise
again...you don't need to exercise to be healthy.
The original post to which you had responded specified activity, not exercise; I thing the change-up in terms had muddied the discussion a bit.
The original post actually reference specific exercises such as being on a treadmill...walking/biking to work or squats at your desk...
and the only thing that muddies things is people trying to be too generic. Specifics are never cloudy.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
no where in my post do I say sedentary but exercise is not a requirement to be healthy.
movement is a good thing but purposeful exercise is not a requirement for health...
*shrug* tomato tomahto. Activity is exercise. If you aren't getting it you are sedentary.
not in the context of my post...your way is a simplification and imo is faulty. Sedentary is too much time seated....but you don't need to exercise to not be sedentary.
ex·er·cise
ˈeksərˌsīz/Submit
noun
1.
activity requiring physical effort, carried out especially to sustain or improve health and fitness.
I can be active by having a job as a waitress, postal carrier...doesn't mean I am unhealthy because I go home and don't exercise...
I can be active as a desk jockey too by taking the stairs or going to an office instead of emailing...but that is not exercise
again...you don't need to exercise to be healthy.
Agree to disagree
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exercise
Definition of exercise
2 a : regular or repeated use of a faculty or bodily organ
or 2b
2
a : regular or repeated use of a faculty or bodily organ
b : bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness trying to get more exercise
Exactly. tomato tomahto2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SandraNancy wrote: »Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."
you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.
Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.
I'm not sure it's fair to say exercise isn't required to be healthy. Sure at a given point in time you could be healthy and not exercising, but over time being sedentary can lead to as many health problems as being overweight.
no where in my post do I say sedentary but exercise is not a requirement to be healthy.
movement is a good thing but purposeful exercise is not a requirement for health...
*shrug* tomato tomahto. Activity is exercise. If you aren't getting it you are sedentary.
not in the context of my post...your way is a simplification and imo is faulty. Sedentary is too much time seated....but you don't need to exercise to not be sedentary.
ex·er·cise
ˈeksərˌsīz/Submit
noun
1.
activity requiring physical effort, carried out especially to sustain or improve health and fitness.
I can be active by having a job as a waitress, postal carrier...doesn't mean I am unhealthy because I go home and don't exercise...
I can be active as a desk jockey too by taking the stairs or going to an office instead of emailing...but that is not exercise
again...you don't need to exercise to be healthy.
Agree to disagree
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exercise
Definition of exercise
2 a : regular or repeated use of a faculty or bodily organ
or 2b
2
a : regular or repeated use of a faculty or bodily organ
b : bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness trying to get more exercise
Exactly. tomato tomahto
smh...not really but fine you can do your thing
Active does not always = exercise.
no exercise <>sedentary
so yah we will have to leave this alone.3 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.6 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of.
) 5 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.9 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.6 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
Such as using ACV to make your body more alkaline?10 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!5 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .! 6 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .!
Those genes are likely no longer in the pool. Vacuum hose accidents can do that.8 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
10 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .!
Those genes are likely no longer in the pool. Vacuum hose accidents can do that.
But that's the point: If there are warnings, and those people read/heed them . . . yikes to the gene pool!4 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
I have to ask - didn't he get along ok on his remaining two?
Just kidding, I know what you meant
2 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .!
Those genes are likely no longer in the pool. Vacuum hose accidents can do that.
It's a Darwin Award where you don't have to die. We live in kinder, gentler times.
9 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .!
Those genes are likely no longer in the pool. Vacuum hose accidents can do that.
But that's the point: If there are warnings, and those people read/heed them . . . yikes to the gene pool!
19 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .!
Those genes are likely no longer in the pool. Vacuum hose accidents can do that.
But that's the point: If there are warnings, and those people read/heed them . . . yikes to the gene pool!
you sound like my husband...he says this all the time.0 -
[
0 -
0
-
2
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4866646/It-s-not-eat-s-eat-matters.html
My unpopular opinion is that this article and "Study" is a load of *kitten*
I always eat before bed.
It all boils down to metabolism, giving the body enough time to digest.
However, while the internet is full of specific plans for dieters saying what time of day to eat, none of those take into account how it could be affected by different schedules.
Our metabolism is affected by our circadian rhythm (i.e. body clock). For some, our body clock is the standard night-day. But for others who work night shifts or burn the candles at both ends, it is not so simple.
Now, researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital have conducted the first study showing how meal times affect your weight gain, depending on what time you rise and sleep.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4866646/It-s-not-eat-s-eat-matters.html#ixzz4sDAgPNmR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook1 -
Simple. CICO is not the whole picture. Content and quality of the calories in makes a difference.
Gary Taubes is no longer viewed as a quack.
Personally, I don't hold to 4:1 carbs to protein for workout. That may be useful for some but not for everyone. We don't all metabolize carbs the same way.39
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions