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?

1171172174176177358

Replies

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.

    The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.

    The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.

    So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.

    I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."

    Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.

    Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."

    I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.

    Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.

    Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
    Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.
    [/i]

    http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc

    It is true, regardless of their fruit and vegetable intake. The sheer amount of calories many people consume makes sure they're okay on nutrients. Nutrient poor foods are not devoid of nutrients. I did this test a while back where I used cronometer to track one deliberately "junky" day. I was expecting it to look horrible, but it didn't look half as bad as I thought it would.

    Menu:
    Breakfast: Sandwich
    Lunch: instant noodles with canned wieners and chickpeas
    Dinner: Mcdonald's cheeseburger and fries
    Snacks: peanut butter and jam, milk (many people drink milk), and some fruits (yes, I cheated a little because going without vegetables was bad enough I couldn't also go without fruits and very few people go completely without any nutrient dense foods)

    Total calories: 2113

    r8p8huoz3qpi.png

    And it shows over 2100 calories to get that level of nutrients which I'm assuming is for a female.
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.

    The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.

    The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.

    So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.

    I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."

    Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.

    Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."

    I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.

    Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.

    Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
    Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.
    [/i]

    http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc

    It is true, regardless of their fruit and vegetable intake. The sheer amount of calories many people consume makes sure they're okay on nutrients. Nutrient poor foods are not devoid of nutrients. I did this test a while back where I used cronometer to track one deliberately "junky" day. I was expecting it to look horrible, but it didn't look half as bad as I thought it would.

    Menu:
    Breakfast: Sandwich
    Lunch: instant noodles with canned wieners and chickpeas
    Dinner: Mcdonald's cheeseburger and fries
    Snacks: peanut butter and jam, milk (many people drink milk), and some fruits (yes, I cheated a little because going without vegetables was bad enough I couldn't also go without fruits and very few people go completely without any nutrient dense foods)

    Total calories: 2113

    r8p8huoz3qpi.png

    Looks like no hope of enough fiber.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,582 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I think there's a difference between "clinical" or "overt" deficiency and "suboptimal" intakes of some nutrients. There are some nutrients that most people may not be truly deficient in, but that doesn't mean that they are taking in enough for their bodies to run optimally.

    What happens if your body runs suboptimally, in your view?

    What I would say -- indeed, what I did say, upthread -- is that getting in a healthful diet (as in lots of fruits and veg, a good omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, etc.) probably does matter. The evidence is that people who have healthful diets live longer and are less likely to have certain health issues, although that in and of itself is really hard to pinpoint a cause for, as there are numerous correlations that may also play a role (someone who bothers to follow health advice about diet may be different in others ways from someone who does not).

    My own belief is that it probably matters, yeah.

    But HOW it matters is NOT that people who eat crummy SAD-type diets end up with nutritional deficiencies caused by a lack of some essential vitamin or inadequate protein (indeed, they are probably well above protein needs) or the like. That's a misunderstanding. And, similarly, even most people who eat monodiets (like carnivore or only potatoes or super low protein raw diets) don't suffer from obvious nutritional deficiencies. That in itself doesn't say much. It's a very low bar, yet one that at least some subset of those pushing "OMG, how can you say that calories are what matter for weight loss, what if someone eats all junk food!" seem to assume is much harder to get over than it is.

    I care deeply about eating a nutritious diet -- not really sure why, probably because it fits with how I like to live. I did so even when I was fat. I pay more attention now, when I'm into fitness. Yet I do know plenty of people who have lived for periods of time on basically junk food (which doesn't mean they get no nutrients or even no vegetables or fruits, they do), and they seem to be perfectly healthy, for the most part, with fitness varying based on things like activity, how much they bother watching how much they eat. Are their bodies operating sub-optimally? Eh, not so sure, and much of the difference in these things (how fit they are, how fast they run, how much they lift, whether they end up with some disease) is more about genetics and training (for the athletic stuff) than specifics of the diet.

    Longterm, does eating a healthy diet matter? On balance, probably, although genetics are probably going to overbalance it. Still good to do what you can, control what you can, IMO. But that's different than thinking that there's some super direct connection between eating a daily donut (and a good diet otherwise) and getting various illnesses, as you sometimes seem to think occurs.
    I would question how accurate some of those micronutrient amounts are.

    Why? Cronometer seems to be extremely accurate, from my experience with it. Anything specific?
    Examples of what I mean by running suboptimally:
    - Slightly slower than normal recovery after exercise
    - Some general fatigue (nothing too serious)
    - Mood (the diet and mental health thread is a good example)
    - Increased susceptibility to some illnesses (like the cold and flu)

    I do realize that some of these examples are affected by factors aside from diet, but micronutrient intake can be implicated in all of them. All of these conditions are distinct from full blown diseases. And in some cases (like a bit of fatigue or downcast mood), I think most of us would consider ourselves to still have great health.

    As for my suspicion of those nutrients, for one thing I want to know how that adds up to 316mg of magnesium.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,582 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I think there's a difference between "clinical" or "overt" deficiency and "suboptimal" intakes of some nutrients. There are some nutrients that most people may not be truly deficient in, but that doesn't mean that they are taking in enough for their bodies to run optimally.

    What happens if your body runs suboptimally, in your view?

    What I would say -- indeed, what I did say, upthread -- is that getting in a healthful diet (as in lots of fruits and veg, a good omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, etc.) probably does matter. The evidence is that people who have healthful diets live longer and are less likely to have certain health issues, although that in and of itself is really hard to pinpoint a cause for, as there are numerous correlations that may also play a role (someone who bothers to follow health advice about diet may be different in others ways from someone who does not).

    My own belief is that it probably matters, yeah.

    But HOW it matters is NOT that people who eat crummy SAD-type diets end up with nutritional deficiencies caused by a lack of some essential vitamin or inadequate protein (indeed, they are probably well above protein needs) or the like. That's a misunderstanding. And, similarly, even most people who eat monodiets (like carnivore or only potatoes or super low protein raw diets) don't suffer from obvious nutritional deficiencies. That in itself doesn't say much. It's a very low bar, yet one that at least some subset of those pushing "OMG, how can you say that calories are what matter for weight loss, what if someone eats all junk food!" seem to assume is much harder to get over than it is.

    I care deeply about eating a nutritious diet -- not really sure why, probably because it fits with how I like to live. I did so even when I was fat. I pay more attention now, when I'm into fitness. Yet I do know plenty of people who have lived for periods of time on basically junk food (which doesn't mean they get no nutrients or even no vegetables or fruits, they do), and they seem to be perfectly healthy, for the most part, with fitness varying based on things like activity, how much they bother watching how much they eat. Are their bodies operating sub-optimally? Eh, not so sure, and much of the difference in these things (how fit they are, how fast they run, how much they lift, whether they end up with some disease) is more about genetics and training (for the athletic stuff) than specifics of the diet.

    Longterm, does eating a healthy diet matter? On balance, probably, although genetics are probably going to overbalance it. Still good to do what you can, control what you can, IMO. But that's different than thinking that there's some super direct connection between eating a daily donut (and a good diet otherwise) and getting various illnesses, as you sometimes seem to think occurs.
    I would question how accurate some of those micronutrient amounts are.

    Why? Cronometer seems to be extremely accurate, from my experience with it. Anything specific?

    As for my suspicion of those nutrients, for one thing I want to know how that adds up to 316mg of magnesium.

    The highest contributors were tomatoes, chickpeas, french fries, and coffee (13% from coffee alone).
    Ok, I did not see coffee listed before. Also, whether or not much of the magnesium in coffee can be utilized by the body is another subject, but I'll leave it there since we're just discussing straight intakes.

  • Morgenholt
    Morgenholt Posts: 18 Member
    Enjcg5 wrote: »
    Don't hate me but the whole "you can be obese and healthy" mindset is absurd to me. Define healthy. You mean to tell me your joints don't ever hurt? You aren't at risk for more diseases than if you were of a normal weight? Be honest with yourself! Let's stop sugar coating (no pun intended) this by calling it "body positivity."

    Agreed. I don't understand people who just sit there satisfied with everything in life. You mean you're not even going to try? Come on.
  • Morgenholt
    Morgenholt Posts: 18 Member
    BabyBear76 wrote: »
    I wouldn't ever hire a personal trainer, that looks like they need a personal trainer.

    This made me laugh. So true.
  • Lgcoulter33
    Lgcoulter33 Posts: 54 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion? I can eat totally healthy, 1400 calories or less a day drink nothing but water except for a pop once a week and exercise and still gain weight. Case in point? The last 10 months. That's how I lived and gained 120 pounds. I had lost 140 pounds previously and kept it off for years. The culprit for my weight gain? My pcos was retriggered by the depo shot for birth control that my obgyn put me on again saying it would be different this time and better for me. I've spent the last 9 months trying to get it under control again and I'm going as a candidate for weight loss surgery to put it into permanent remission and relose all the weight I originally lost plus the final 70 pounds I had to goal. Also I'm on a low dose of topamax for weight loss. As I see it, It's not cheating as I've lowered calorie intake to 1200 a day and dropped the pop once a week. I've lost 12 pounds so far. My bmi is 56. I'm 327 pounds as of yesterday, was 339.9. Wls is not cheating if you have conditions that it can cure and you know that it's something you're willing to commit to for the rest of your life.

    Of course WLS isn't "cheating". Weight loss isn't a competition, it's an individual effort where each person is free to chose the method that works for them, and the only hard and fast rule is to stay healthy while doing it. You have no reason to have to defend your decision.

    Thanks. :) the original poster and several people following had the opinion that it is cheating, along with some people saying metabolism and other diseases are no reason to say you can't lose weight. Just wanted to put it out there that there are some legit conditions that make weight loss next to impossible.
  • lenkearney
    lenkearney Posts: 116 Member
    u can pry my C4 out of my cold dead hands.

    you find this that effective?

  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    edited August 2017
    Yeah, never, ever take weightlifting advice from a guy who looks like this

    18k1sq4hgm9xfjpg.jpg

    (sarcasm font in full effect in this post)

    Well played.

    ETA: for those who don't know, that's Mark Rippetoe, author of Starting Strength and one of the most successful trainers out there.
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    Yeah, never, ever take weightlifting advice from a guy who looks like this

    oh c'mon . . . i mean, look at that face :lol:
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    And yeah, PTs are totally not human and susceptible to life stuff getting in the way or just human psychology preventing them from getting to where they'd like to be at that present time.

    Not to mention any number of medical professionals who don't follow their own advice.
This discussion has been closed.