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?

1200201203205206358

Replies

  • GemstoneofHeart
    GemstoneofHeart Posts: 864 Member
    Great. Thanks, you guys. I've gotten into my sixties without ever knowing this is a thing, to worry about what other women are eating or not eating.

    Really? I am supposed to worry about that? *Puppy* that.

    Nope don't worry about it!! I honestly feel bad for them being willing to sit there hungry and pass on meals. If it were me, I would binge so hard later, so I am glad I don't do it!
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    cdkelly wrote: »
    I am one of those people who gets full very fast. I get really uncomfortable bloating if I eat too much. My body prefers to eat much smaller portions several times throughout the day. I find it interesting that people make the assumption that in that situation I'm trying to be "dainty" lol. That's just absurd to me. Maybe consider that their body is different from yours and stuffing their face until bloated full just doesn't work well for them and that they actually really don't give a crap with you think of them.

    I think it's less about volume and more the dramatics surrounding their eating of a tiny portion. I happen to not know anyone who does this but I know it does happen. I just know people who unashamedly like to eat.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    cdkelly wrote: »
    I am one of those people who gets full very fast. I get really uncomfortable bloating if I eat too much. My body prefers to eat much smaller portions several times throughout the day. I find it interesting that people make the assumption that in that situation I'm trying to be "dainty" lol. That's just absurd to me. Maybe consider that their body is different from yours and stuffing their face until bloated full just doesn't work well for them and that they actually really don't give a crap with you think of them.

    I think it's less about volume and more the dramatics surrounding their eating of a tiny portion. I happen to not know anyone who does this but I know it does happen. I just know people who unashamedly like to eat.

    Right. It's about how it's talked about. I don't really notice how much others eat otherwise (and it's reasonably rare among people I know, except my mother who totally does it and then eats stuff secretly).

    I'm more thinking of stuff on MFP with people being super defensive about how they never, never ate much, really, they've always struggled to make themselves eat, they certainly got fat from undereating, have always had a tiny appetite.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133 :weary:

    I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.

    I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.

    If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...

    and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...

    and then there is this part.

    Per this article
    1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
    2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
    3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
    4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
    5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035

    Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.


    I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.

    I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?

    I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?

    The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.

    Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.

    Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 32,787 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    cdkelly wrote: »
    I am one of those people who gets full very fast. I get really uncomfortable bloating if I eat too much. My body prefers to eat much smaller portions several times throughout the day. I find it interesting that people make the assumption that in that situation I'm trying to be "dainty" lol. That's just absurd to me. Maybe consider that their body is different from yours and stuffing their face until bloated full just doesn't work well for them and that they actually really don't give a crap with you think of them.

    I think it's less about volume and more the dramatics surrounding their eating of a tiny portion. I happen to not know anyone who does this but I know it does happen. I just know people who unashamedly like to eat.

    Right. It's about how it's talked about. I don't really notice how much others eat otherwise (and it's reasonably rare among people I know, except my mother who totally does it and then eats stuff secretly).

    I'm more thinking of stuff on MFP with people being super defensive about how they never, never ate much, really, they've always struggled to make themselves eat, they certainly got fat from undereating, have always had a tiny appetite.

    My mother, who does a spectacular job of being a martyr, does the opposite. She does this quiet "shame" thing of over-eating because she doesn't like to leave loads on her plate then 5 minutes later has to go throw it up because she's over-stuffed. And again does it with quiet but actually obviously put on shame because we all know what's happening.

    So similar thing in reverse and infuriating. Eat the food or don't, we don't need dinner and a show.

    (For the record, my mother is a terrible person who isn't in my life, this is a drop in the ocean!)

    Most of this stuff (not just your mom, but in general) comes down to attention whoring, right? I mean narcissistic people pull this kind of crap all the time so they can be the center of attention.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    cdkelly wrote: »
    I am one of those people who gets full very fast. I get really uncomfortable bloating if I eat too much. My body prefers to eat much smaller portions several times throughout the day. I find it interesting that people make the assumption that in that situation I'm trying to be "dainty" lol. That's just absurd to me. Maybe consider that their body is different from yours and stuffing their face until bloated full just doesn't work well for them and that they actually really don't give a crap with you think of them.

    I think it's less about volume and more the dramatics surrounding their eating of a tiny portion. I happen to not know anyone who does this but I know it does happen. I just know people who unashamedly like to eat.

    Right. It's about how it's talked about. I don't really notice how much others eat otherwise (and it's reasonably rare among people I know, except my mother who totally does it and then eats stuff secretly).

    I'm more thinking of stuff on MFP with people being super defensive about how they never, never ate much, really, they've always struggled to make themselves eat, they certainly got fat from undereating, have always had a tiny appetite.

    My mother, who does a spectacular job of being a martyr, does the opposite. She does this quiet "shame" thing of over-eating because she doesn't like to leave loads on her plate then 5 minutes later has to go throw it up because she's over-stuffed. And again does it with quiet but actually obviously put on shame because we all know what's happening.

    So similar thing in reverse and infuriating. Eat the food or don't, we don't need dinner and a show.

    (For the record, my mother is a terrible person who isn't in my life, this is a drop in the ocean!)

    Most of this stuff (not just your mom, but in general) comes down to attention whoring, right? I mean narcissistic people pull this kind of crap all the time so they can be the center of attention.

    Pretty much.
  • jcrossle713
    jcrossle713 Posts: 18 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    I believe WLS is cheating.

    I have issues with WLS as well, but it has a large amount of research to support its efficacy (although I don't think the research has looked closely enough at long-term effects).

    Saying WLS is "cheating" is equivalent to saying that coronary angioplasty is "cheating", back surgery is "cheating", etc.

    I agree. Those saying WLS is "cheating" are greatly uneducated and uninformed. WLS is just a tool to aid the individual in their journey. You absolutely will not succeed with WLS if you don't eat right, learn nutrition, exercise, and take care of your body. It's a catalyst to get you there. Not a "cheat."
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133 :weary:

    I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.

    I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.

    If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...

    and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...

    and then there is this part.

    Per this article
    1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
    2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
    3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
    4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
    5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035

    Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.


    I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.

    I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?

    I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?

    The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.

    Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.

    Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.

    It's doing that based on your activity being consistent through the rest of the day, so 2500 sound about right.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133 :weary:

    I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.

    I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.

    If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...

    and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...

    and then there is this part.

    Per this article
    1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
    2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
    3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
    4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
    5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035

    Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.


    I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.

    I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?

    I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?

    The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.

    Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.

    Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.

    It's doing that based on your activity being consistent through the rest of the day, so 2500 sound about right.

    :) I gave up trying to figure out the formula behind the steps vs calories because too much maths. Diary gives me rough calories in, fitbit gives me rough calories out, observation of real-life weight loss trends gives me balance. Life is good.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,051 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133 :weary:

    I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.

    I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.

    If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...

    and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...

    and then there is this part.

    Per this article
    1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
    2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
    3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
    4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
    5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035

    Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.


    I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.

    I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?

    I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?

    The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.

    Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.

    Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.

    Yep, i start getting positive adjustments around that step mark too.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133 :weary:

    I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.

    I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.

    If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...

    and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...

    and then there is this part.

    Per this article
    1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
    2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
    3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
    4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
    5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035

    Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.


    I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.

    I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?

    I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?

    The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.

    Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.

    Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.

    Yep, i start getting positive adjustments around that step mark too.

    is that fitbit giving you the calories or Mfp Just asking for clarification as it indicates on the exercise page that if you change certain things then only adjustments "received" from that point forward will be impacted...to me it sounds like that number is coming from Fitbit...
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,051 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    OMG I'm never going to get to the end of this thread! I's taken me weeks, and i am now at the end of page 133 :weary:

    I just wanted to quickly weigh in on the counting every little activity as exercise thing.

    I have a fitbit, and the days i do heavy cleaning, gardening whatever, these activities have not even made a blip on my overall calorie count/award for the day. So therefore I'm in the camp of only counting actual exercise as exercise.

    If you're going to reply to this please give me a month to get to the end of the thread until I'm able to read it and reply...

    and I guess this is part of my point by saying to the question "should I log this" as "no"...

    and then there is this part.

    Per this article
    1) <5000 steps.d (sedentary);
    2) 5000-7499 steps.d (low active);
    3) 7500-9999 steps.d (somewhat active);
    4) > or =10,000-12,499 steps.d (active); and
    5) > or =12,500 steps.d (highly active)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14715035

    Per this...people are still considered sedentary pre 5k steps a day...and if at some point people are doing "extra life activity" if it doesn't bring them over the threshold of sedentary or even low active it should not be logged.


    I see the quoted all the time but this is not the standard MFP uses. It starts at 2500 for sedentary and goes up in 2500 increments. I know this because I am (in combination with my tracker missing lots of pottering round the flat steps because i'm not exactly striding in a 1 bed flat) and after about 2500 I start getting extra calories.

    I would be curious how you know that MFP uses 2500 increments?

    I've looked and the settings don't use numbers per say....is there somewhere they published this information?

    The article above is on pubmed so I would take that over some arbitrary number MFP uses anyway.

    Self tested and forum observation. If I start getting credited with extra calories after only 2500 steps then it starts there as the minimum level. Then we have people who have reported setting themselves as very active with the cited 12'500 steps above and losing too quickly. And it wouldn't make sense for it start at 2500 then increase each level at more than that.

    Just to add another data point: I'm set on sedentary on mfp. I have 1805 fitbit steps today so far and 15 extra calories.

    Yep, i start getting positive adjustments around that step mark too.

    is that fitbit giving you the calories or Mfp Just asking for clarification as it indicates on the exercise page that if you change certain things then only adjustments "received" from that point forward will be impacted...to me it sounds like that number is coming from Fitbit...

    It's in MFP . My steps sync over from Fitbit.

    Is this what you're asking?

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    everher wrote: »
    Great. Thanks, you guys. I've gotten into my sixties without ever knowing this is a thing, to worry about what other women are eating or not eating.

    Really? I am supposed to worry about that? *Puppy* that.

    The older I get the more I realize that people concern themselves far too much with what other people do in general when it in no way concerns them.

    I really don't think anyone is talking about being a nosy Nancy about what others are eating. I don't know how to be more clear than above, but I would never think it was weird that someone just didn't order much (let alone had a salad, which I do all the time, and I saw you said you sometimes felt uncomfortable about in the other thread, so maybe that's coloring your take on this?).
  • MissMandyT85
    MissMandyT85 Posts: 19 Member
    I don't believe in cheat days. Why should I work hard to loose weight to then turn around and gain some back? Plus that'll make me crave those foods even more. I'm trying to change my lifestyle. Having cheat days won't help that I don't think. I know I won't always be perfect and sometimes I'll go over my calories but I haven't yet and I'm doing everything I can to be sure I don't start to.
This discussion has been closed.