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
-
~ I don't think it matters if you eat 6 small meals or 2-3 bigger meals.
~ I don't think eating up to one hour after you wake up (breakfast) is necessary. I usually have my 1st meal 3-6 hours after I wake up and I find breakfast makes me hungrier.
~ I believe that there's real food and "fake" food. "Fake" food is to me the heavily processed foods. Not that I have a problem eating tasty "fake" foods. :P
~ I believe people who've been thin all their lives (like really thin) just undereat and their metabolism is lower. I only know one person who actually has something with her thyroid and can afford to eat a lot without big consequenses.
~ And in the end I believe that being of a certain size, achieving something you want is a consequense of making habits. Without it becoming a part of you, it will be very hard to maintain your goal.
If a food has energy and nutrients that are available for my body to process and use, what does it mean to say it is "fake"?4 -
~ I don't think it matters if you eat 6 small meals or 2-3 bigger meals.
~ I don't think eating up to one hour after you wake up (breakfast) is necessary. I usually have my 1st meal 3-6 hours after I wake up and I find breakfast makes me hungrier.
Agree. I don't think these are unpopular opinions, but ones that most here would agree with. The eating pattern I choose may make it more or less likely that I personally will overeat, however. (6 small meals would drive me crazy)~ And in the end I believe that being of a certain size, achieving something you want is a consequense of making habits. Without it becoming a part of you, it will be very hard to maintain your goal.
Agree with this too.~ I believe that there's real food and "fake" food. "Fake" food is to me the heavily processed foods. Not that I have a problem eating tasty "fake" foods. :P
I guess a heavily processed food would be something like Soylent? I can see why you might not want to make it a major part of your diet, but how is it fake?~ I believe people who've been thin all their lives (like really thin) just undereat and their metabolism is lower. I only know one person who actually has something with her thyroid and can afford to eat a lot without big consequenses.
If you mean underweight, yes, they probably do undereat (eat less than would be necessary to preserve their weight at a higher weight). Their metabolism would be less than someone who was heavier, if by metabolism you mean TDEE (or NEAT). I get the feeling you are trying to argue against something you think others believe here, but I am not sure I am following you. I do think there are natural variations in NEAT and in the extent to which people's NEAT just naturally (as in without thinking about it) increases or decreases when they increase or decrease calories. I don't think this is an "excuse" for being obese or means one can't help being overweight, but I think it's real.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I still say very easy exercise isn't as much fun, and neither is very simple exercise.
But that's just a matter of personal taste, like whether someone likes Brussels Sprouts or not. . . unless, of course, they have exercise-related fitness or weight loss goals that their exercise choices don't support. Then they're Just Wrong.
The bolded is not true for me. Hiking is my favorite exercise and it's pretty simple. And it's sometimes easy, though I do prefer when it's not all easy.
Yup, like my next paragraph said, personal taste.1 -
I love *almost* all BBQ. St Louis, Carolina (North and South), Texas, KC, Memphis...
I just don't care for Alabama's "white sauce". It doesn't do anything for me.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Anyone got a good American chili recipe? I think I'm gonna order some ancho chili, lol.
Mine:
2 lb beef (roast or stew meat cut into bite sized pieces preferred but can be made with ground beef)
1 large or 2 medium yellow onions, diced
4-6 cloves garlic (minced)
several stalks celery, sliced
1 large green bell pepper, diced
2 - 28oz cans diced tomatoes
12 oz tomato paste
2/3 cup regular (not hot) chile powder
(or: 1/2 c. powdered ancho chile, 2 Tbl Mexican Oregano, 2 Tbl ground cumin)
1/4 c. Worchestershire sauce
Hot chile peppers to taste
water or tomato juice as needed for preferred consistency.
Yes, you can add kidney or black beans if you want, but this is Texas-style chili
I make this in my crock pot so I just dump everything and cook it on low for 8-12 hours (brown the meat if using ground beef). If you want to do it on the stovetop, brown the meat with the onions in a little bit of oil. Add remaining ingredients and let simmer until the meat is tender and flavors are well mingled.
Thanks @earlnabby ! It tastes very fruity.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Anyone got a good American chili recipe? I think I'm gonna order some ancho chili, lol.
Mine:
2 lb beef (roast or stew meat cut into bite sized pieces preferred but can be made with ground beef)
1 large or 2 medium yellow onions, diced
4-6 cloves garlic (minced)
several stalks celery, sliced
1 large green bell pepper, diced
2 - 28oz cans diced tomatoes
12 oz tomato paste
2/3 cup regular (not hot) chile powder
(or: 1/2 c. powdered ancho chile, 2 Tbl Mexican Oregano, 2 Tbl ground cumin)
1/4 c. Worchestershire sauce
Hot chile peppers to taste
water or tomato juice as needed for preferred consistency.
Yes, you can add kidney or black beans if you want, but this is Texas-style chili
I make this in my crock pot so I just dump everything and cook it on low for 8-12 hours (brown the meat if using ground beef). If you want to do it on the stovetop, brown the meat with the onions in a little bit of oil. Add remaining ingredients and let simmer until the meat is tender and flavors are well mingled.
Thanks @earlnabby ! It tastes very fruity.
Yes, heavy on the tomatoes but the large amounts of chili powder tends to offset it. Glad you liked it.1 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@piperdown44I should tell my co-workers that I'm entering the chili contest with a chili made of fruit and seeds and record their reactions.
If it has beans it's not chili. It's stew.
If it doesn't have beans it's not chili, it's hot dog or pasta sauce.
Texas chili has no beans in it.
Texans do it wrong.
This is the unpopular opinions thread. I personally don't discriminate against any chili.
Neither do I. I love hot dog chili too.
Me too, I put both kinds on my hot dogs.
Have you had Cincinnati style?
I have once and that cinnamon flavor is an interesting take. Not something I normally go for but pretty good.
I like the mild tang it gives it.
Of course, Cincinnati chili is only intended to be eaten on hot dogs, spaghetti or fries, never as a dish all it's own.
Yessss spaghetti noodles with Cincy chili, cheese and raw onions on top is the ticket.
And now I will be having Skyline for dinner tonight!2 -
LOL. I love the blank stares I get when I explain how I not only lost weight but normalized my blood sugar levels (eat less, move more, reduce the carbs a little bit). When they ask why I didn't go low carb or keto or Atkins or whatever, I always say "Why? what I am doing is working just fine and a lot easier"
Oh yes! I've lost 87 lbs since January, and its finally becoming noticable, so I have had several folks ask me how I did it. Telling them that I simply counted calories gets me a blank stare in return, and then I start getting all the diet advice. "oh, you should be eating several small meals", or "carbs are bad" - they can't seem to accept that I can eat what I want as long as I stay within my calorie range. All I can say is that obviously what I'm doing is working, so why should I change it?12 -
On that note, here's my unpopular opinion.
The North American diet, that gets so maligned in the press, is really not too bad. Most people eat a decent assortment of food, just too much of it.15 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »On that note, here's my unpopular opinion.
The North American diet, that gets so maligned in the press, is really not too bad. Most people eat a decent assortment of food, just too much of it.
And also get not nearly enough exercise...7 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »On that note, here's my unpopular opinion.
The North American diet, that gets so maligned in the press, is really not too bad. Most people eat a decent assortment of food, just too much of it.
And also get not nearly enough exercise...
Bingo!1 -
Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.2 -
Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
#1 agree
#2 Agree to disagree since this is personal preference. I like the higher BMI look better.6 -
Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
this is so, so, so true.
I always thought that I was "muscular", when really I was just fat. I was a firefighter for 8 years, I put on a lot of muscle mass, most people would consider me of above average build. But if I had the same LBM I do now and under 20% BF, I would have a "normal" BMI
I would have to add another good 5-10 pounds of muscle mass to be "overweight" at 20% BF2 -
Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
1 for sure.
2 eh...my bmi floats between 23 and 24 and I wear a size 4 so not sure how I look overweight at 148lbs with abs starting to show (can see oblique line and two pack up top)
As well my husband would disagree as well...
2 -
Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Agree with #1
As for #2. A person with a BMI of 23-24 is not overweight so they will not look overweight. Perhaps you meant over-fat? Though that is harder to judge simply by looking, especially if the person is clothed.3 -
Yeah I'm side eyeing, the 23-24 BMI thing especially depending on body composition. For a woman my height, the difference between BMI numbers is a handful of pounds that doesn't really show up when I'm clothed. Heck, I'm so short, the range of healthy weights for my height isn't even that great. I think it's only about 30 pounds.
3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Agree with #1
As for #2. A person with a BMI of 23-24 is not overweight so they will not look overweight. Perhaps you meant over-fat? Though that is harder to judge simply by looking, especially if the person is clothed.
Normal body fat for women is up to 31%. Some women can be higher than that at a normal weight, but it's not very common. Do they have higher body fat than leaner women? Sure, but I wouldn't call the majority overweight or overfat, just not exceptionally lean which seems to be her preference.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Agree with #1
As for #2. A person with a BMI of 23-24 is not overweight so they will not look overweight. Perhaps you meant over-fat? Though that is harder to judge simply by looking, especially if the person is clothed.
Normal body fat for women is up to 31%. Some women can be higher than that at a normal weight, but it's not very common. Do they have higher body fat than leaner women? Sure, but I wouldn't call the majority overweight or overfat, just not exceptionally lean which seems to be her preference.
I wouldn't call them overfat either. My point was that only an overweight person can look overweight.3 -
You can eat anything if you're trying to lose weight. Anything. Just do it in moderation and take into account what you eat the rest of the day if you're going to eat crap at some point. And don't eat crap everyday.1
-
Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Currently sitting at a BMI of 23. I can assure you I don't look remotely overweight.9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »On that note, here's my unpopular opinion.
The North American diet, that gets so maligned in the press, is really not too bad. Most people eat a decent assortment of food, just too much of it.
Not sure about that. Only 10% of US adults get the recommended amount of fruits and veggies. Not something to be proud of
https://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc-701213.html
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »On that note, here's my unpopular opinion.
The North American diet, that gets so maligned in the press, is really not too bad. Most people eat a decent assortment of food, just too much of it.
Not sure about that. Only 10% of US adults get the recommended amount of fruits and veggies. Not something to be proud of
https://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc-701213.html
odd in Canada it's 50% of woman do and 37% of men...hard to believe the US is that far behind us2 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Currently sitting at a BMI of 23. I can assure you I don't look remotely overweight.
That's why I used boldface on the word Opinion. My current BMI is 22.7, but I've seen myself at a BMI of 19.4 and I've seen myself at 29.2 in the recent 4 years. I still think that me at 22.7 is carrying extra weight in a way that is aesthetically unattractive to me. Personal taste. I think the thin physique looks best with more muscle exposure/definition. The cutoff of 24.9 for Normal and 25.0 for Overweight is somewhat arbitrary. In Hong Kong, overweight is BMI 23+, for example. The threshold for overweight used to be BMI >27.8. These standards evolve and change.2 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Currently sitting at a BMI of 23. I can assure you I don't look remotely overweight.
That's why I used boldface on the word Opinion. My current BMI is 22.7, but I've seen myself at a BMI of 19.4 and I've seen myself at 29.2 in the recent 4 years. I still think that me at 22.7 is carrying extra weight in a way that is aesthetically unattractive to me. Personal taste. I think the thin physique looks best with more muscle exposure/definition. The cutoff of 24.9 for Normal and 25.0 for Overweight is somewhat arbitrary. In Hong Kong, overweight is BMI 23+, for example. The threshold for overweight used to be BMI >27.8. These standards evolve and change.
Might have to do with how it was worded, but in my mind "opinion" is not the same as "preference". Opinion is deeper rooted and often has a reason and a rationale behind it, while preference is mellow and just is, you like something or you don't. Opinion can be debated, while preference can only be shared and discussed.4 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Currently sitting at a BMI of 23. I can assure you I don't look remotely overweight.
That's why I used boldface on the word Opinion. My current BMI is 22.7, but I've seen myself at a BMI of 19.4 and I've seen myself at 29.2 in the recent 4 years. I still think that me at 22.7 is carrying extra weight in a way that is aesthetically unattractive to me. Personal taste. I think the thin physique looks best with more muscle exposure/definition. The cutoff of 24.9 for Normal and 25.0 for Overweight is somewhat arbitrary. In Hong Kong, overweight is BMI 23+, for example. The threshold for overweight used to be BMI >27.8. These standards evolve and change.
The same BMI is going to look quite different on different people, without even resorting to outliers of muscle mass. Broad-shouldered men will look different at the same weight/height than men of a more narrow build. Women with a wide pelvic span or large breasts will look different from women with a narrow pelvis and small breasts. That's why BMI is a range in the first place.
At BMI 19-20, I look fine, IMO my best. But I know others who'd look utterly skeletal, even at a similar height.9 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Currently sitting at a BMI of 23. I can assure you I don't look remotely overweight.
That's why I used boldface on the word Opinion. My current BMI is 22.7, but I've seen myself at a BMI of 19.4 and I've seen myself at 29.2 in the recent 4 years. I still think that me at 22.7 is carrying extra weight in a way that is aesthetically unattractive to me. Personal taste. I think the thin physique looks best with more muscle exposure/definition. The cutoff of 24.9 for Normal and 25.0 for Overweight is somewhat arbitrary. In Hong Kong, overweight is BMI 23+, for example. The threshold for overweight used to be BMI >27.8. These standards evolve and change.
okay so what does an opinion about physical attractiveness have to do with health and fitness?4 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Currently sitting at a BMI of 23. I can assure you I don't look remotely overweight.
That's why I used boldface on the word Opinion. My current BMI is 22.7, but I've seen myself at a BMI of 19.4 and I've seen myself at 29.2 in the recent 4 years. I still think that me at 22.7 is carrying extra weight in a way that is aesthetically unattractive to me. Personal taste. I think the thin physique looks best with more muscle exposure/definition. The cutoff of 24.9 for Normal and 25.0 for Overweight is somewhat arbitrary. In Hong Kong, overweight is BMI 23+, for example. The threshold for overweight used to be BMI >27.8. These standards evolve and change.
The same BMI is going to look quite different on different people, without even resorting to outliers of muscle mass. Broad-shouldered men will look different at the same weight/height than men of a more narrow build. Women with a wide pelvic span or large breasts will look different from women with a narrow pelvis and small breasts. That's why BMI is a range in the first place.
At BMI 19-20, I look fine, IMO my best. But I know others who'd look utterly skeletal, even at a similar height.
^^This. I'm all boobs and hips. I've been at a BMI of 20, it's too thin for me.6 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Currently sitting at a BMI of 23. I can assure you I don't look remotely overweight.
That's why I used boldface on the word Opinion. My current BMI is 22.7, but I've seen myself at a BMI of 19.4 and I've seen myself at 29.2 in the recent 4 years. I still think that me at 22.7 is carrying extra weight in a way that is aesthetically unattractive to me. Personal taste. I think the thin physique looks best with more muscle exposure/definition. The cutoff of 24.9 for Normal and 25.0 for Overweight is somewhat arbitrary. In Hong Kong, overweight is BMI 23+, for example. The threshold for overweight used to be BMI >27.8. These standards evolve and change.
The same BMI is going to look quite different on different people, without even resorting to outliers of muscle mass. Broad-shouldered men will look different at the same weight/height than men of a more narrow build. Women with a wide pelvic span or large breasts will look different from women with a narrow pelvis and small breasts. That's why BMI is a range in the first place.
At BMI 19-20, I look fine, IMO my best. But I know others who'd look utterly skeletal, even at a similar height.
^This. And I should mention that bringing Asians, who have different builds and generally higher body fat (thus a reason why there's a different BMI threshold for them) into the discussion really muddied the waters.
I got kind of confused also how the opinion about the pp's own appearance was supposed to then be extrapolated onto all females wrt to variances in frame size or muscle mass. I'm still scratching my head over that one.
I have large breasts, shoulders, and small hips. I look fine at several different BMI's because I carry my weight proportionately. 23, 22, 21? All look fine. Then again, I have decent muscle mass.5 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Unpopular Opinion 1: BMI is a great measurement for most people. Although muscular people would get a high reading, I think most people overestimate how muscular they are and if they dropped weight would be in the normal range.
Unpopular Opinion 2: People look best in the BMI 19-22 range. At BMI 23-24 I still think most people look overweight and are carrying around a lot of extra weight. Mostly women, less so with men.
Currently sitting at a BMI of 23. I can assure you I don't look remotely overweight.
That's why I used boldface on the word Opinion. My current BMI is 22.7, but I've seen myself at a BMI of 19.4 and I've seen myself at 29.2 in the recent 4 years. I still think that me at 22.7 is carrying extra weight in a way that is aesthetically unattractive to me. Personal taste. I think the thin physique looks best with more muscle exposure/definition. The cutoff of 24.9 for Normal and 25.0 for Overweight is somewhat arbitrary. In Hong Kong, overweight is BMI 23+, for example. The threshold for overweight used to be BMI >27.8. These standards evolve and change.
The same BMI is going to look quite different on different people, without even resorting to outliers of muscle mass. Broad-shouldered men will look different at the same weight/height than men of a more narrow build. Women with a wide pelvic span or large breasts will look different from women with a narrow pelvis and small breasts. That's why BMI is a range in the first place.
At BMI 19-20, I look fine, IMO my best. But I know others who'd look utterly skeletal, even at a similar height.
Yup. I have a very narrow build with very little difference between my hips and my waist. Right now my BMI is 19.5 and not only do my ribs not show but I still have fat slopping over my waist and into my abdomen. I didn't look much different at a BMI of 21 or 22, and I wouldn't look much different at 18.5, just a little thicker or thinner around the middle.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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