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?
Options
Replies
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Well if the apocalypse is slow enough like global warming, maybe we'll all be like the frog in the pot.
If it's quick, the people who already have their shelters and ammunition stockpiled will be the winners. I'm not saying those are the brightest bulbs, though. I know a couple of them...I'm hoping to tag along to their shelter without doing the work. Or maybe the winners will be the ones who jump on that ship to Mars.
Oh, it needs to be a cataclysmic apocalypse, for sure! Let's just hope the scientists make it to the bunkers...And we're already the frog in the pot.
An apocalypse would be so fascinating from an anthropological perspective. How would we cope? Who, of the survivors, would ultimately survive? Would it be enough to cause speciation? So many questions!
I'm pretty glad I've made it to my sixties without it happening. I mean at this point I've lived my fair share of years, so now I'm just hoping it's quick. None of this drawn out stuff. I *think* I may even not live long enough to suffer too much from the global warming thing. . .there's nothing to be done at this point -short of a mini human wipeout. Like half the people.
Maybe the people over there ~~>>
I did my part, sort of. I didn't have kids, I live in a teensy shoebox of a condo. I have a 20 year old car with barely 100,000 miles on it.
Earth will shake us off at some point.
Not sure it's scientists who will survive, though. They're too nice.
5 -
Teeth?
I never got my adult 2nd bicuspids - I still have my babies (except the one that I had to have removed). I was surprised to find that this wasn't really uncommon.0 -
Teeth?
I never got my adult 2nd bicuspids - I still have my babies (except the one that I had to have removed). I was surprised to find that this wasn't really uncommon.
It's usually hereditary-one of my kids, my husband and then my mil all have missing adult teeth that never formed.0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »Anybody else drink Fairlife ultra-pasteurized milks? More protein and less sugar than than regular milk, and they're smoother than their regular milk counterparts at respective fat levels.
Added bonus, they're shelf stable for a very long time, so I don't have to worry about them spoiling if I got a week or 2 without milk.
I do. Twice the protein and lactose free. I'm getting older and we'll, lactose sadly is becoming an issue.
I drink Faitlife but I'm single and my milk use is limited to my evening bowl of cereal so a container can last me upwards for 2 weeks
We are pretty heavy users in our household. Usually go through 2 containers per week. Most of the time I find them on sale so price is not really an issue. Even if it was, I like the product so would get it anyway...0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
Then can I get it in a tube?!Carlos_421 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »[Not sure I've ever tried an oreo, though we can get them in NZ now, but no Halo Top.
Imagine two of the the thinnest, driest cookies ever, more like a cracker with just a slight cocoa taste, sandwiched around a thin slice of fondant icing. And then when you eat it, you have visible chocolate crumbs in every crevice of your teeth until you floss for an hour. No thank you. I swear as a kid half the time I'd eat the fondant cream in the middle & throw out the cookie. These days I don't even like fondant.
Fondant is crazy hard and not good. The cream filling in an Oreo is not fondant.
Of course not. It's de-minted dollar store toothpaste.Nony_Mouse wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Anybody else drink Fairlife ultra-pasteurized milks? More protein and less sugar than than regular milk, and they're smoother than their regular milk counterparts at respective fat levels.
Added bonus, they're shelf stable for a very long time, so I don't have to worry about them spoiling if I got a week or 2 without milk.
And they cost 2-4+ times as much as the store brand milk (my area at least). That's what the Coke marketing gets you.
The price different amounts to like 25 cents per serving, for a better tasting product with twice the protein. I've never seen any marking or advertising for it, but for me it's well worth the tiny extra expense.
Sure if you like it go for it. Locally a gallon of store milk is $0.98 and 52 oz of Fairlife is $2.98 so we see a significant difference, especially when we drink 3+ gallons a week.
Jesus H, milk is cheap in the US! I pay $4.50 for 2 litres (half a gallon). Even accounting for exchange rates, that's an insane difference. But then, a) our cows live in fields and are grass-fed, as they're meant to be, and b) most of our dairy is exported which drives up the price.
EVERYTHING is cheap over there. I pay the same as you for milk here in Australia.
Also, I have a question. If humans are descended from Apes, monkeys whatever then why haven't all the Apes evolved into humans by now. It's like evolution picked and chose who "changed" and who didn't.
If someone asks me 'why are there still apes/wolves?" in an arsey way, I show them different breeds of dogs. Then I explain that at various points in history, groups of people have set out to breed for specific characteristics by selecting for those traits in the local dogs in their life. Dogs living elsewhere weren't affected.Christine_72 wrote: »
When Philip Smith (made-up name) and colleagues bred the poodle in France and/or Germany, the dogs in an English village where they were breeding English Sheepdogs were unaffected by all this. They did NOT magically turn into poodles, even though some contemporary dogs far away were developing generation by generation into the modern poodle.
I also like 'so why aren't we still evolving?'. To which the answer is, 'we are'.
For starters, we're considerably taller than people just a thousand years ago. Right?
Do you think that's a reasonable retort?
Speak for yourself.
Exactly! If people are now taller then why are there still short people?
Hehe, cos it takes time for one gene to become dominant over another and squeeze it out (so oversimplified, but an evolutionary biologist I am not!). If the environment continues to favour taller people, there will be less and less shorter people.
You have to wonder if evolution will come up with some nifty way of countering obesity, since as a species we don't seem particularly inclined to do anything about that ourselves. But, since our genes aren't what make us fat, I guess not. Again, not an evolutionary biologist.
My probably quite popular opinion - I should stop derailing this thread with human evolution tidbits!0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
Then can I get it in a tube?!Carlos_421 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »[Not sure I've ever tried an oreo, though we can get them in NZ now, but no Halo Top.
Imagine two of the the thinnest, driest cookies ever, more like a cracker with just a slight cocoa taste, sandwiched around a thin slice of fondant icing. And then when you eat it, you have visible chocolate crumbs in every crevice of your teeth until you floss for an hour. No thank you. I swear as a kid half the time I'd eat the fondant cream in the middle & throw out the cookie. These days I don't even like fondant.
Fondant is crazy hard and not good. The cream filling in an Oreo is not fondant.
Of course not. It's de-minted dollar store toothpaste.Nony_Mouse wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Anybody else drink Fairlife ultra-pasteurized milks? More protein and less sugar than than regular milk, and they're smoother than their regular milk counterparts at respective fat levels.
Added bonus, they're shelf stable for a very long time, so I don't have to worry about them spoiling if I got a week or 2 without milk.
And they cost 2-4+ times as much as the store brand milk (my area at least). That's what the Coke marketing gets you.
The price different amounts to like 25 cents per serving, for a better tasting product with twice the protein. I've never seen any marking or advertising for it, but for me it's well worth the tiny extra expense.
Sure if you like it go for it. Locally a gallon of store milk is $0.98 and 52 oz of Fairlife is $2.98 so we see a significant difference, especially when we drink 3+ gallons a week.
Jesus H, milk is cheap in the US! I pay $4.50 for 2 litres (half a gallon). Even accounting for exchange rates, that's an insane difference. But then, a) our cows live in fields and are grass-fed, as they're meant to be, and b) most of our dairy is exported which drives up the price.
EVERYTHING is cheap over there. I pay the same as you for milk here in Australia.
Also, I have a question. If humans are descended from Apes, monkeys whatever then why haven't all the Apes evolved into humans by now. It's like evolution picked and chose who "changed" and who didn't.
If someone asks me 'why are there still apes/wolves?" in an arsey way, I show them different breeds of dogs. Then I explain that at various points in history, groups of people have set out to breed for specific characteristics by selecting for those traits in the local dogs in their life. Dogs living elsewhere weren't affected.Christine_72 wrote: »
When Philip Smith (made-up name) and colleagues bred the poodle in France and/or Germany, the dogs in an English village where they were breeding English Sheepdogs were unaffected by all this. They did NOT magically turn into poodles, even though some contemporary dogs far away were developing generation by generation into the modern poodle.
I also like 'so why aren't we still evolving?'. To which the answer is, 'we are'.
For starters, we're considerably taller than people just a thousand years ago. Right?
Do you think that's a reasonable retort?
Speak for yourself.
Exactly! If people are now taller then why are there still short people?
Hehe, cos it takes time for one gene to become dominant over another and squeeze it out (so oversimplified, but an evolutionary biologist I am not!). If the environment continues to favour taller people, there will be less and less shorter people.
You have to wonder if evolution will come up with some nifty way of countering obesity, since as a species we don't seem particularly inclined to do anything about that ourselves. But, since our genes aren't what make us fat, I guess not. Again, not an evolutionary biologist.
My probably quite popular opinion - I should stop derailing this thread with human evolution tidbits!
That was a tongue in cheek haha. Unfortunately I don't think evolution is likely to do anything about obesity. If anything, it could become more common. Being fat is becoming more and more acceptable, so we're looking at more babies with parents genetically prone to obesity.3 -
2 -
I just think of Wall-E as the future of humans. Just a bunch of lazy fat *kitten* on floating chars with their every whim catered to by robots. We're not far off now really.5
-
VintageFeline wrote: »I just think of Wall-E as the future of humans. Just a bunch of lazy fat *kitten* on floating chars with their every whim catered to by robots. We're not far off now really.
2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Anybody else drink Fairlife ultra-pasteurized milks? More protein and less sugar than than regular milk, and they're smoother than their regular milk counterparts at respective fat levels.
Added bonus, they're shelf stable for a very long time, so I don't have to worry about them spoiling if I got a week or 2 without milk.
And they cost 2-4+ times as much as the store brand milk (my area at least). That's what the Coke marketing gets you.
The price different amounts to like 25 cents per serving, for a better tasting product with twice the protein. I've never seen any marking or advertising for it, but for me it's well worth the tiny extra expense.
I like it, especially their chocolate milk (140 cal a serving!). They have some real sugar so the sucralose taste is well hidden in my opinion.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
Then can I get it in a tube?!Carlos_421 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »[Not sure I've ever tried an oreo, though we can get them in NZ now, but no Halo Top.
Imagine two of the the thinnest, driest cookies ever, more like a cracker with just a slight cocoa taste, sandwiched around a thin slice of fondant icing. And then when you eat it, you have visible chocolate crumbs in every crevice of your teeth until you floss for an hour. No thank you. I swear as a kid half the time I'd eat the fondant cream in the middle & throw out the cookie. These days I don't even like fondant.
Fondant is crazy hard and not good. The cream filling in an Oreo is not fondant.
Of course not. It's de-minted dollar store toothpaste.Nony_Mouse wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Anybody else drink Fairlife ultra-pasteurized milks? More protein and less sugar than than regular milk, and they're smoother than their regular milk counterparts at respective fat levels.
Added bonus, they're shelf stable for a very long time, so I don't have to worry about them spoiling if I got a week or 2 without milk.
And they cost 2-4+ times as much as the store brand milk (my area at least). That's what the Coke marketing gets you.
The price different amounts to like 25 cents per serving, for a better tasting product with twice the protein. I've never seen any marking or advertising for it, but for me it's well worth the tiny extra expense.
Sure if you like it go for it. Locally a gallon of store milk is $0.98 and 52 oz of Fairlife is $2.98 so we see a significant difference, especially when we drink 3+ gallons a week.
Jesus H, milk is cheap in the US! I pay $4.50 for 2 litres (half a gallon). Even accounting for exchange rates, that's an insane difference. But then, a) our cows live in fields and are grass-fed, as they're meant to be, and b) most of our dairy is exported which drives up the price.
EVERYTHING is cheap over there. I pay the same as you for milk here in Australia.
Also, I have a question. If humans are descended from Apes, monkeys whatever then why haven't all the Apes evolved into humans by now. It's like evolution picked and chose who "changed" and who didn't.
If someone asks me 'why are there still apes/wolves?" in an arsey way, I show them different breeds of dogs. Then I explain that at various points in history, groups of people have set out to breed for specific characteristics by selecting for those traits in the local dogs in their life. Dogs living elsewhere weren't affected.Christine_72 wrote: »
When Philip Smith (made-up name) and colleagues bred the poodle in France and/or Germany, the dogs in an English village where they were breeding English Sheepdogs were unaffected by all this. They did NOT magically turn into poodles, even though some contemporary dogs far away were developing generation by generation into the modern poodle.
I also like 'so why aren't we still evolving?'. To which the answer is, 'we are'.
For starters, we're considerably taller than people just a thousand years ago. Right?
Do you think that's a reasonable retort?
Speak for yourself.
Exactly! If people are now taller then why are there still short people?
Hehe, cos it takes time for one gene to become dominant over another and squeeze it out (so oversimplified, but an evolutionary biologist I am not!). If the environment continues to favour taller people, there will be less and less shorter people.
You have to wonder if evolution will come up with some nifty way of countering obesity, since as a species we don't seem particularly inclined to do anything about that ourselves. But, since our genes aren't what make us fat, I guess not. Again, not an evolutionary biologist.
My probably quite popular opinion - I should stop derailing this thread with human evolution tidbits!
That was a tongue in cheek haha. Unfortunately I don't think evolution is likely to do anything about obesity. If anything, it could become more common. Being fat is becoming more and more acceptable, so we're looking at more babies with parents genetically prone to obesity.
Yeah, I knew you were being tongue in cheek, but figured I'd explain for the masses anyway
I suspect you're right about the obesity thing, sadly. Unless it becomes a survival issue.
Our Neanderthal genes have a lot to answer for in terms of many of our modern ailments. Obviously they were advantageous at the time, but not so much in conjunction with our crappy modern lifestyles (so, actually not Neanderthals fault, they gave us some good stuff, 'we' screwed it up). I need to get my mitts on the source articles, but here's a woefully short basic article from Science Mag: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/did-europeans-get-fat-neandertals1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Anybody else drink Fairlife ultra-pasteurized milks? More protein and less sugar than than regular milk, and they're smoother than their regular milk counterparts at respective fat levels.
Added bonus, they're shelf stable for a very long time, so I don't have to worry about them spoiling if I got a week or 2 without milk.
And they cost 2-4+ times as much as the store brand milk (my area at least). That's what the Coke marketing gets you.
The price different amounts to like 25 cents per serving, for a better tasting product with twice the protein. I've never seen any marking or advertising for it, but for me it's well worth the tiny extra expense.
I like it, especially their chocolate milk (140 cal a serving!). They have some real sugar so the sucralose taste is well hidden in my opinion.
Ahhhhh, I'm so tempted by the chocolate milk. Been meaning to pick some up to keep around as an indulgence. Same calories as most Atkins snacks, but with more protein.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
Then can I get it in a tube?!Carlos_421 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »[Not sure I've ever tried an oreo, though we can get them in NZ now, but no Halo Top.
Imagine two of the the thinnest, driest cookies ever, more like a cracker with just a slight cocoa taste, sandwiched around a thin slice of fondant icing. And then when you eat it, you have visible chocolate crumbs in every crevice of your teeth until you floss for an hour. No thank you. I swear as a kid half the time I'd eat the fondant cream in the middle & throw out the cookie. These days I don't even like fondant.
Fondant is crazy hard and not good. The cream filling in an Oreo is not fondant.
Of course not. It's de-minted dollar store toothpaste.Nony_Mouse wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Anybody else drink Fairlife ultra-pasteurized milks? More protein and less sugar than than regular milk, and they're smoother than their regular milk counterparts at respective fat levels.
Added bonus, they're shelf stable for a very long time, so I don't have to worry about them spoiling if I got a week or 2 without milk.
And they cost 2-4+ times as much as the store brand milk (my area at least). That's what the Coke marketing gets you.
The price different amounts to like 25 cents per serving, for a better tasting product with twice the protein. I've never seen any marking or advertising for it, but for me it's well worth the tiny extra expense.
Sure if you like it go for it. Locally a gallon of store milk is $0.98 and 52 oz of Fairlife is $2.98 so we see a significant difference, especially when we drink 3+ gallons a week.
Jesus H, milk is cheap in the US! I pay $4.50 for 2 litres (half a gallon). Even accounting for exchange rates, that's an insane difference. But then, a) our cows live in fields and are grass-fed, as they're meant to be, and b) most of our dairy is exported which drives up the price.
EVERYTHING is cheap over there. I pay the same as you for milk here in Australia.
Also, I have a question. If humans are descended from Apes, monkeys whatever then why haven't all the Apes evolved into humans by now. It's like evolution picked and chose who "changed" and who didn't.
If someone asks me 'why are there still apes/wolves?" in an arsey way, I show them different breeds of dogs. Then I explain that at various points in history, groups of people have set out to breed for specific characteristics by selecting for those traits in the local dogs in their life. Dogs living elsewhere weren't affected.Christine_72 wrote: »
When Philip Smith (made-up name) and colleagues bred the poodle in France and/or Germany, the dogs in an English village where they were breeding English Sheepdogs were unaffected by all this. They did NOT magically turn into poodles, even though some contemporary dogs far away were developing generation by generation into the modern poodle.
I also like 'so why aren't we still evolving?'. To which the answer is, 'we are'.
For starters, we're considerably taller than people just a thousand years ago. Right?
Do you think that's a reasonable retort?
Speak for yourself.
Exactly! If people are now taller then why are there still short people?
Hehe, cos it takes time for one gene to become dominant over another and squeeze it out (so oversimplified, but an evolutionary biologist I am not!). If the environment continues to favour taller people, there will be less and less shorter people.
You have to wonder if evolution will come up with some nifty way of countering obesity, since as a species we don't seem particularly inclined to do anything about that ourselves. But, since our genes aren't what make us fat, I guess not. Again, not an evolutionary biologist.
My probably quite popular opinion - I should stop derailing this thread with human evolution tidbits!
I'm not sure of the consensus these days, but a few years back there was some speculation that menarche was happening earlier because of increased body fat in young women. This would be more like evolution accommodating obesity rather than countering it, wouldn't it? (*)
(* This is a tongue in cheek; I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I'm just talkin' *baby-feline*. Even to me, something like this really doesn't seem like an adaptation to pressures on survival and/or breeding in obese people. Maybe some strange epigenetic thing prewired to happen in infrequent periods of plenty, since plenty seems to make us die younger?)
@Nony_Mouse, as far as I'm concerned, you can post as many evolution tidbits as you will: On this or any other thread, it kinda classes up the place. 8 -
Way to go, Ann. Mentioning little girls' periods will kill a thread.
6 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »jamesakrobinson 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?
What other "bro science" would you be referring to then if you were being sarcastic when you mentioned CICO? I ask because I didn't see anything but actual logic being used to refute what you were saying. Even if you were being sarcastic, this is your second post in a short time to mention CICO in a negative light. I find that odd especially since you were listing off facts such as climate change earlier. Whether you believe it or not, CICO is fact in relation to weight loss.
My first comment about CICO was to
emphasize that it isn't an absolute. (I said partially bunk) Those who preach CICO imply that a thousand calories of cookies and a thousand calories of fish have the same nutritional value... That's just not correct.
It's part of the equation but it is definitely not nearly as important as the advocates claim.
literally nobody has ever said this. we're 142 pages in and this has been covered ad nauseum.
Awesome meme! You are correct of course. These latest post from the Low Carb/ Keto advocate are a classic illustration of why people get so resistant to the concept. It's proponents don't just let it stand on it's own as a possible way of eating. There is this need to misrepresent, twist facts, deny facts and do it all with an obnoxious condescension that is really offputting.
I can't find the article right now by James Krieger of Weightology and if someone has it please post. But he essentially states that he poured over all the available research he could find looking to prove that Low carb/ Keto had a metabolic advantage. He thought is must and had a bias to prove it. He couldn't. No system of eating has a metabolic advantage for weight loss and in the end it is CICO for weight loss and good nutrient dense foods for nutrition. End. Of. Story.
Now if a renowned researcher PHD like Krieger can't find one, why am I believing some random guy on the interwebs??
For what it's worth, my PhD dissertation was partly on the mechanics of carbohydrate metabolism. I also poured through the literature, on more than one occasion as it's been a long interest of mine over my 20 years of laboratory research, and I have also been unable to find any real evidence that any diet abrogates or advantages cico. I am of the professional opinion that forcing yourself into ketosis long term is playing biological roulette, and hold deep disagreement with the scientists who advocate for it (and there aren't many who don't also have major self - interest in the diet promotion).
I'm also not convinced by the scientists who claim long term very low calorie diets are sustainable, and actually believe several of the labs doing this work engage in coercive and cult-like control of the graduate students, having met these people and say through their presentations. Further, they present a severe moral and ethical hazard which makes trusting their spurious claims much more difficult.
I realize here I'm just another person on the net, but I feel very strongly this is something not confronted enough because of the way in which professional scientists interact.25 -
cmriverside wrote: »Way to go, Ann. Mentioning little girls' periods will kill a thread.
But I used a science-y word for it: I thought no one would notice!
(Maybe this thread is reaching a point where thread-euthanasia would be a kindness . . . though that nice @tomteboda did just post something quite interesting, so maybe there's hope for the patient yet.)8 -
kommodevaran wrote: »
Intermittent fasting is a faddy and silly name for not eating the whole damn time. It is not some magical way to be able to eat more while burning more fat. It's a way to control your eating. Having regular feeding times and cutoffs for eating creates easy boundaries. It's the same as "meals" and "skipping breakfast".
BTW, breakfast is the first meal of the day, so you can't really skip it unless you don't eat for at least 24 hours.
Snacking is contributing to the obesity epidemic. I am all for reintroducing meals. If IF can do that, I may have to settle for that solution.
Quick and easy is killing us. Good food takes time and is worth waiting for.
Healthy food does not cost more. It takes an effort, but so does "unhealthy" food. It's just another set of efforts, another way of thinking and organizing things.
MFP is wonderful, but there are some important things that should have been fixed. Weight loss rate should be in line with amount to lose, moderation could be better, food database is a mess, food diary is slow.
Enough for now.
I like you, this was my favorite part 0 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »jamesakrobinson 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?
What other "bro science" would you be referring to then if you were being sarcastic when you mentioned CICO? I ask because I didn't see anything but actual logic being used to refute what you were saying. Even if you were being sarcastic, this is your second post in a short time to mention CICO in a negative light. I find that odd especially since you were listing off facts such as climate change earlier. Whether you believe it or not, CICO is fact in relation to weight loss.
My first comment about CICO was to
emphasize that it isn't an absolute. (I said partially bunk) Those who preach CICO imply that a thousand calories of cookies and a thousand calories of fish have the same nutritional value... That's just not correct.
It's part of the equation but it is definitely not nearly as important as the advocates claim.
literally nobody has ever said this. we're 142 pages in and this has been covered ad nauseum.
Awesome meme! You are correct of course. These latest post from the Low Carb/ Keto advocate are a classic illustration of why people get so resistant to the concept. It's proponents don't just let it stand on it's own as a possible way of eating. There is this need to misrepresent, twist facts, deny facts and do it all with an obnoxious condescension that is really offputting.
I can't find the article right now by James Krieger of Weightology and if someone has it please post. But he essentially states that he poured over all the available research he could find looking to prove that Low carb/ Keto had a metabolic advantage. He thought is must and had a bias to prove it. He couldn't. No system of eating has a metabolic advantage for weight loss and in the end it is CICO for weight loss and good nutrient dense foods for nutrition. End. Of. Story.
Now if a renowned researcher PHD like Krieger can't find one, why am I believing some random guy on the interwebs??
For what it's worth, my PhD dissertation was partly on the mechanics of carbohydrate metabolism. I also poured through the literature, on more than one occasion as it's been a long interest of mine over my 20 years of laboratory research, and I have also been unable to find any real evidence that any diet abrogates or advantages cico. I am of the professional opinion that forcing yourself into ketosis long term is playing biological roulette, and hold deep disagreement with the scientists who advocate for it (and there aren't many who don't also have major self - interest in the diet promotion).
I'm also not convinced by the scientists who claim long term very low calorie diets are sustainable, and actually believe several of the labs doing this work engage in coercive and cult-like control of the graduate students, having met these people and say through their presentations. Further, they present a severe moral and ethical hazard which makes trusting their spurious claims much more difficult.
I realize here I'm just another person on the net, but I feel very strongly this is something not confronted enough because of the way in which professional scientists interact.
A very interesting perspective. One would think if there were any metabolic advantage, it would have presented by now. Lord knows it's been studies often enough!!3 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »jamesakrobinson 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?
What other "bro science" would you be referring to then if you were being sarcastic when you mentioned CICO? I ask because I didn't see anything but actual logic being used to refute what you were saying. Even if you were being sarcastic, this is your second post in a short time to mention CICO in a negative light. I find that odd especially since you were listing off facts such as climate change earlier. Whether you believe it or not, CICO is fact in relation to weight loss.
My first comment about CICO was to
emphasize that it isn't an absolute. (I said partially bunk) Those who preach CICO imply that a thousand calories of cookies and a thousand calories of fish have the same nutritional value... That's just not correct.
It's part of the equation but it is definitely not nearly as important as the advocates claim.
literally nobody has ever said this. we're 142 pages in and this has been covered ad nauseum.
Awesome meme! You are correct of course. These latest post from the Low Carb/ Keto advocate are a classic illustration of why people get so resistant to the concept. It's proponents don't just let it stand on it's own as a possible way of eating. There is this need to misrepresent, twist facts, deny facts and do it all with an obnoxious condescension that is really offputting.
I can't find the article right now by James Krieger of Weightology and if someone has it please post. But he essentially states that he poured over all the available research he could find looking to prove that Low carb/ Keto had a metabolic advantage. He thought is must and had a bias to prove it. He couldn't. No system of eating has a metabolic advantage for weight loss and in the end it is CICO for weight loss and good nutrient dense foods for nutrition. End. Of. Story.
Now if a renowned researcher PHD like Krieger can't find one, why am I believing some random guy on the interwebs??
For what it's worth, my PhD dissertation was partly on the mechanics of carbohydrate metabolism. I also poured through the literature, on more than one occasion as it's been a long interest of mine over my 20 years of laboratory research, and I have also been unable to find any real evidence that any diet abrogates or advantages cico. I am of the professional opinion that forcing yourself into ketosis long term is playing biological roulette, and hold deep disagreement with the scientists who advocate for it (and there aren't many who don't also have major self - interest in the diet promotion).
I'm also not convinced by the scientists who claim long term very low calorie diets are sustainable, and actually believe several of the labs doing this work engage in coercive and cult-like control of the graduate students, having met these people and say through their presentations. Further, they present a severe moral and ethical hazard which makes trusting their spurious claims much more difficult.
I realize here I'm just another person on the net, but I feel very strongly this is something not confronted enough because of the way in which professional scientists interact.
A very interesting perspective. One would think if there were any metabolic advantage, it would have presented by now. Lord knows it's been studies often enough!!
Indeed...2 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »jamesakrobinson 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?
What other "bro science" would you be referring to then if you were being sarcastic when you mentioned CICO? I ask because I didn't see anything but actual logic being used to refute what you were saying. Even if you were being sarcastic, this is your second post in a short time to mention CICO in a negative light. I find that odd especially since you were listing off facts such as climate change earlier. Whether you believe it or not, CICO is fact in relation to weight loss.
My first comment about CICO was to
emphasize that it isn't an absolute. (I said partially bunk) Those who preach CICO imply that a thousand calories of cookies and a thousand calories of fish have the same nutritional value... That's just not correct.
It's part of the equation but it is definitely not nearly as important as the advocates claim.
literally nobody has ever said this. we're 142 pages in and this has been covered ad nauseum.
Awesome meme! You are correct of course. These latest post from the Low Carb/ Keto advocate are a classic illustration of why people get so resistant to the concept. It's proponents don't just let it stand on it's own as a possible way of eating. There is this need to misrepresent, twist facts, deny facts and do it all with an obnoxious condescension that is really offputting.
I can't find the article right now by James Krieger of Weightology and if someone has it please post. But he essentially states that he poured over all the available research he could find looking to prove that Low carb/ Keto had a metabolic advantage. He thought is must and had a bias to prove it. He couldn't. No system of eating has a metabolic advantage for weight loss and in the end it is CICO for weight loss and good nutrient dense foods for nutrition. End. Of. Story.
Now if a renowned researcher PHD like Krieger can't find one, why am I believing some random guy on the interwebs??
For what it's worth, my PhD dissertation was partly on the mechanics of carbohydrate metabolism. I also poured through the literature, on more than one occasion as it's been a long interest of mine over my 20 years of laboratory research, and I have also been unable to find any real evidence that any diet abrogates or advantages cico. I am of the professional opinion that forcing yourself into ketosis long term is playing biological roulette, and hold deep disagreement with the scientists who advocate for it (and there aren't many who don't also have major self - interest in the diet promotion).
I'm also not convinced by the scientists who claim long term very low calorie diets are sustainable, and actually believe several of the labs doing this work engage in coercive and cult-like control of the graduate students, having met these people and say through their presentations. Further, they present a severe moral and ethical hazard which makes trusting their spurious claims much more difficult.
I realize here I'm just another person on the net, but I feel very strongly this is something not confronted enough because of the way in which professional scientists interact.
A very interesting perspective. One would think if there were any metabolic advantage, it would have presented by now. Lord knows it's been studies often enough!!
But but, the keto gods said I will just lose and lose all the fat I'm now burning because keto adapted! Mind you, when asked what happens when they've lost enough and just want to maintain I've thus far been met with tumbleweed........7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions