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
-
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
So what's the change since the 50s/60s
Elimination of recess, Ubiquity of cars/televisions/internet...ie no more go out and play.
There may be a minor impact of diet, but the radical reduction in TDEE is much more significant.15 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
Populations have thrived on high carb diets. I suggest you read up on Blue Zones.
Here's an image showing a breakdown of the diet from one of the populations studied, the traditional Okinawan diet (note that I said traditional, not the diet there that's had Western food introduced).
The most interesting thing to me to note about that diet is the overall calorie consumption. It's quite low.
I know that someone else can come along and pull out another population that thrived with another macro mix, and I think that's the point. I'd be interested mainly in their overall calorie consumption, not in their macro mix. I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to the Okinawans.
The Inuit people actually have a diet high in fats and protein.
I believe the average calorie consumption is quoted at 3100...with 50% of it coming from fat.
Then there is the Masai..
I know that there has been research done on both populations and have found some issues with it like bone density etc but per one study I read...
"...research often times brings forth more questions than answers...."
I don't think that pulling out "extremes" in today's climate of all the available food really proves anything other than this is what they did and they are in an extreme.
What's your point?
I'm not trying to illustrate extremes here, I'm trying to show that carbs aren't the enemy.
Note I should have said calorie consumption in relation to TDEE. I'm sure that the overall need for calories among the Innuit is higher given the climate, possible need for hunting, etc.5 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
I can go to the grocery store tomorrow and fill my cart with foods comprised of any macros mix I choose, and this has generally been the case in the US for the past 100 years; almost all of those poor health conditions are entirely the result of bad eating habits created by affluence and the ease of availability of high carb / sugar / sodium / saturated foods through our industrialized food supply. I fail to see what climate change has had to do with any “first world” food choices.4 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
Populations have thrived on high carb diets. I suggest you read up on Blue Zones.
Here's an image showing a breakdown of the diet from one of the populations studied, the traditional Okinawan diet (note that I said traditional, not the diet there that's had Western food introduced).
The most interesting thing to me to note about that diet is the overall calorie consumption. It's quite low.
I know that someone else can come along and pull out another population that thrived with another macro mix, and I think that's the point. I'd be interested mainly in their overall calorie consumption, not in their macro mix. I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to the Okinawans.
Good point, and I agree that humans are adaptable. Some observations...
The very high carb diet above is also very low GI.
The population is very lean and also has a tendency toward quite low muscle mass.
To address your question about a different (pre contact, or at least before adopting the diet of Europeans) I submit the Inuit. Almost zero carbs for thousands of years and never knew diabetes, tooth decay, or any of dozens of other conditions... a very muscular group, not particularly lean but actual obesity was rare until about a hundred years ago...
Now... diabetes, dental problems, and obesity are rampant (even worse than the general population) in communities, but still rare amongst those who live on "country food".
I didn't ask a question about different. I'm well aware of the Innuit and the Massai.
You missed my point.
You're pointing to carbs as causative, and I'm showing you a population that thrived on them, so they clearly don't cause anything.
I could show you, a chart, if I could find it, for the Sardinians, who eat bread made with refined grains. That's high GI. They are another Blue Zone population.
So there goes your GI theory.
My main point is that obesity is likely a multi-factorial issue.
Attempts to explain it by saying it comes down to one factor and one factor only are foolish and wrong-headed.
Different people thrive on different macro balances, and different people build wonderful physiques on different macro balances.
Macro balance affects satiety, compliance, and dietary satisfaction. Those factors are not universal. To argue that they are is foolish.
I'm glad you found what works for you, man, but honestly, do some more research. What you think are facts are personal opinions based on what works for you. That doesn't make what works for you apply to everyone.16 -
And this is really all we know...GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »obesity is likely a multi-factorial issue.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Attempts to explain it by saying it comes down to one factor and one factor only are foolish and wrong-headed.
Indeed...
4 -
@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're vegetarian.
8 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're vegetarian.
And pandas.7 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.8 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s.
And it's been happening all over again with carbs...17 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
It.
Was.
Not.
People did not stop eating fats. They cared as much about dietary recommendations back than as they do now, which is not one bit.14 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s.
And it's been happening all over again with carbs...
QFT! And it's tiresome.5 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
In response to the bold, you are one of the people that you are complaining about. You literally just said:
"Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)"
That is your opinion that you defend by cherry picking bits and pieces of information yet you you state it as an absolute.11 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
In response to the bold, you are one of the people that you are complaining about. You literally just said:
"Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)"
That is your opinion that you defend by cherry picking bits and pieces of information yet you you state it as an absolute.
I don't see those statements as necessarily contradictory. They can (are?) both be true.
Or perhaps... I may have softened my stance in light of a couple of well thought out replies which used facts and examples rather than dogma and "bro science" (like CICO) to make a point?9 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
In response to the bold, you are one of the people that you are complaining about. You literally just said:
"Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)"
That is your opinion that you defend by cherry picking bits and pieces of information yet you you state it as an absolute.
I don't see those statements as necessarily contradictory. They can (are?) both be true.
Or perhaps... I may have softened my stance in light of a couple of well thought out replies which used facts and examples rather than dogma and "bro science" (like CICO) to make a point?
You think CICO is broscience?6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
In response to the bold, you are one of the people that you are complaining about. You literally just said:
"Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)"
That is your opinion that you defend by cherry picking bits and pieces of information yet you you state it as an absolute.
I don't see those statements as necessarily contradictory. They can (are?) both be true.
Or perhaps... I may have softened my stance in light of a couple of well thought out replies which used facts and examples rather than dogma and "bro science" (like CICO) to make a point?
You think CICO is broscience?
LOL I need a sarcasm font. ;-)3 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s.
I think it would have been beneficial early on if dietary fat would have been called something other than "fat". There is an illogical intertwining of dietary and bodily fat that a lot of people never seem to conceptually unravel and it isn't helpful.7 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
You think people followed the guidelines? Think again. There is more "I know I shouldn't eat this but..." than meets the eye. You're talking as if people have been eating nothing but rice cakes since the recommendations. From the chart you will notice countries with a whole spectrum of obesity rates at any fat intake level, and in this screenshot in particular all the countries that eat less fat have a lower obesity rate than the US. You can't pin obesity on carbs or the perceived (not real) lack of fat.
10 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
I've been alive through the whooooole time. I was an adult in the 1970s. A mere handful of the population pays sustained attention to anything the FDA (or other nannies) say about our eating - then, now or in between.
So, why the "obesity and diabetes epidemic"?
It's ubiquitous, ready-to-eat, very affordable food; norms that encourage constant consumption of it; reduced activity levels in average employment and daily chores; and dramatic shifts to leisure activities centered around screen time.
All of these push evolutionary buttons developed through millennia of scarcity. Innate pleasure-seeking inclines us toward things that have always, in that past, improved survival: More food and less activity. It only takes a few hundred calories a day to make the obesity changes we see.
Yes, obesity & diabetes increase early mortality. But we're still living long enough to breed. Until something happens to penalize pre-breeding ill health and physical incapability, evolution is not going to be providing much counter-pressure.
The problem isn't the carbs; it's the culture.
I'm thinking any solution will be culture, too, if we're lucky . . . economic collapse, ecological disaster, widespread war, etc. - strong evolutionary levers - aren't very appealing.6 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
A personal preference is one thing, but you wrote " I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans." If you're going to make statements like that, people are going to ask what the foundation is.
As far as "natural," it may or may not be. But we know that we reject many things that are "natural" and can be perfectly healthy and happy doing things that are "unnatural." It's an irrelevant category for health.
So when you say it isn't "healthy," what facts are you basing that on? I know you're not basing it on studies of vegetarians and vegans because those studies exist and overall they don't show that they have a higher rate of illness or early death than non-vegans and vegetarians.3 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
You really think most people don't eat enough fat???6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- 1.5M All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 386.2K Introduce Yourself
- 42.5K Getting Started
- 258.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 174.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.1K Recipes
- 231.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 303 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.3K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152K Motivation and Support
- 7.3K Challenges
- 1.2K Debate Club
- 96.1K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 1.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 20 News and Announcements
- 492 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 1.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions