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?

1201202204206207358

Replies

  • Motorsheen
    Motorsheen Posts: 20,459 Member
    Leftovers?
  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    edited August 2017
    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.

    i think that's a little uncharitable. what i've noticed is how much of a social role food/eating plays for women.

    i mean, i have a great list of mfp friends who are all active and have tons of stuff going on in their lives. we still talk a whole ton about food. what we ate, whether we ate, why we ate, how we felt about it. in the right social context, it's fun.

    so, whatever. i have my gang of friends and we have our own ways of exchanging foodspeak. it's none of my business if i look over in a restaurant and a totally different group of people are trading their own form of it. it's not my personal thing, but it's not narcissism just because it's a different dialect from mine.

  • kokonani
    kokonani Posts: 507 Member
    I'm loving Fasting and OMAD! I don't care what people think, I enjoy the feeling of hunger. At least I know that I can eat whatever I want at my next and only meal for the day.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    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.

    i think that's a little uncharitable. what i've noticed is how much of a social role food/eating plays for women.

    i mean, i have a great list of mfp friends who are all active and have tons of stuff going on in their lives. we still talk a whole ton about food. what we ate, whether we ate, why we ate, how we felt about it. in the right social context, it's fun.

    so, whatever. i have my gang of friends and we have our own ways of exchanging foodspeak. it's none of my business if i look over in a restaurant and a totally different group of people are trading their own form of it. it's not my personal thing, but it's not narcissism just because it's a different dialect from mine.

    Your MFP feed is a bit of a different scenario than in a restaurant though isn't it?

    My mum is definitely warped in the noggin.
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    edited August 2017
    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.

    Yep, and I think that's a recent change for MFP, because my cals per MFP and Fitbit used to match up. Now they don't and it's fecking annoying. MFP is basically giving me an extra 100 cals a day over Fitbit.

    ETA: just checked back over the last few days, and it seems to be doing that sorting itself out at midnight thing, which I was sure I'd solved somehow. Still annoying.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 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?

    Not really...

    but it's fine really because I still say regardless of when or where the adjustment comes from that the pubmed publication is a more accurate source of "activity Level" than what MFP uses and that if a person doesn't get past lets says light active on their "extra life activity" such as moving boxes then that stuff should not be logged...

    However we all have our own opinion...and I see someone says CICO doesn't work so I will leave my small unpopular opinion to die and let this monster live....
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member



    This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.

    [
    Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.

    Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.

    It worked pretty great for me ;)

    eta: one post and then deleted account. Ok then lol.

    Yup open a can of worms and doesn't stay for the can oh whoop "kitten"..smh
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member



    This notion of CICO has been disproven time and again by leading metabolism researchers( Drs. Volek and Phinney, Dr. Erik Westman, Dr. Jason Fung, Ivor Cummings, et. al.) Research as proven that metabolism is nearly entirely hinged on a person's ability to manage the production and use of insulin. Insulin resistance (or conversely, insulin sensitivity for those without broken metabolisms) is the REASON for weight gain and loss. The CICO model doesn't hold water in real world application when you can see a person eating 1200 cal and doing cardio until they're blue in the face and not losing an ounce of weight, and a person eating 2.5k+ calories and NO EXERCISE shedding 2-5lbs per week.

    [
    Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.

    Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.

    These "real world applications" where you think CICO "doesn't hold water" often involve logging errors and overestimating calories burnt through activity.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Nony_Mouse 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.

    Yep, and I think that's a recent change for MFP, because my cals per MFP and Fitbit used to match up. Now they don't and it's fecking annoying. MFP is basically giving me an extra 100 cals a day over Fitbit.

    ETA: just checked back over the last few days, and it seems to be doing that sorting itself out at midnight thing, which I was sure I'd solved somehow. Still annoying.

    Is it? That's annoying. I'm glad I pretty much do a TDEE method with how I have things set up and just eat a consistent caloric level. I look at my adjustment, but don't pay too much attention to it.
This discussion has been closed.