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
-
janejellyroll wrote: »JeepHair77 wrote: »I also want to point out that the dairy industry propaganda implies people NEED dairy products to get necessary nutrients. Those of us who like dairy products aren't falling for the hype, we just find them tasty. <shrug>
Yep. I don't need dairy to get adequate protein, but it is a good source and I enjoy various dairy products.
Every industry tries to convince us that their products are essential or highly advantageous. That's called "marketing". I give you as example number one, the supplement industry. Not to mention the beauty industry, the beef/pork/chicken industries, the vegetable industry, etc.
But the dairy industry convinced the USDA that it deserved representation on the "food pyramid" on which most of us were raised, promoting, through government and medical sources, the belief that dairy, in significant serving numbers (3-7 servings per day), was an essential element of a nutritious diet.
That's not your average marketing scheme by your average retail product.
It was less a matter of "convincing" the USDA than it is that a big part of the mandate of the USDA is to promote the interests of American farmers, many of whom produce dairy. I am not at all surprised to see that the portion of the government charged with promoting the consumption of agricultural products would encourage the consumption of dairy.
(This isn't an attempt to score a point against dairy, it's neutral in my eyes. We just have to realize what the actual mission of the USDA is. We can't fault them for attempting to fulfill their mission).
+1
Good example of that is grains. Because guess what the US produces a lot of - and yet no one with any knowledge claims that grains and grain products are a necessary part of a nutritious diet. We don't need so much as a single serving, and yet there they sit as the base of the old pyramid.
I mean, I find the entire food pyramid suspect, and its history is kind of sordid. The dairy industry lobbied HARD for the position that they have, and I'm not aware of any other industry doing the same (maybe the egg people did? I admit that my memory of this is somewhat fuzzy. I ought to research this more, probably).
0 -
It's HARDER with hypothyroid, but it STILL comes down to CICO. You CAN'T gain MASS by eating less than you burn. You can retain water, but that's not REAL weight in terms of body composition (lean mass and fat).007dualitygirl wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
Not true. Hypothyroid causes me much grief. If I eat too little, all metabolic hell breaks lose and I gain weight. There is a balance that is required. Many times people are eating TOO FEW calories and their body is on lockdown.
A calculator can say "you burned 1500 calories today" and you can eat 1000 calories, but if in reality, you only burned 1000 calories that day because you have metabolic syndrome or hypothyroidism, you will not see results at all.
Point being that you have to take responsibility for increasing your metabolism along with keeping your caloric intake at bay.
That being said, if there are no real metabolic issues -- then I totally agree.
For metabolic issues, FIX the metabolism problem ... people say they have a slow metabolism while drinking alcohol everyday, never lifting weights to increase muscle mass, never doing HiiT cardio ... never working on their stress levels ... etc -- well that is irresponsible.
I'm going to go have my wine now and stop complaining about how I can't lose 20 pounds
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh yes the legendary "fake" weight then it must be?
If its not lean mass or fat mass, what could it be?
Water is lean mass0 -
All of this dairy talk brings up an unpopular opinion that I have:
I hate the very concept of alternative milks. Okay, I get it, if you have a medical reason and can't process dairy then use the almond/soy/cashew or whatever milk in your smoothie/coffee/cereal, etc. Or, get Lactiad. I've seen nothing that convinces me that they are healthier or better alternatives to plain ol' dairy. They may be lower calories, but that doesn't automatically make them more nutritious.7 -
All of this dairy talk brings up an unpopular opinion that I have:
I hate the very concept of alternative milks. Okay, I get it, if you have a medical reason and can't process dairy then use the almond/soy/cashew or whatever milk in your smoothie/coffee/cereal, etc. Or, get Lactiad. I've seen nothing that convinces me that they are healthier or better alternatives to plain ol' dairy. They may be lower calories, but that doesn't automatically make them more nutritious.
I agree. I have used chocolate almond in my smoothies but mostly because it's delicious and lower calorie than the dairy version. If i have a large milky coffee when out I will generally go for soy because the combination of lots of milk and coffee isn't pleasant for me or anyone with the misfortune to be in my vicinity.3 -
All of this dairy talk brings up an unpopular opinion that I have:
I hate the very concept of alternative milks. Okay, I get it, if you have a medical reason and can't process dairy then use the almond/soy/cashew or whatever milk in your smoothie/coffee/cereal, etc. Or, get Lactiad. I've seen nothing that convinces me that they are healthier or better alternatives to plain ol' dairy. They may be lower calories, but that doesn't automatically make them more nutritious.
In agreement. It's just different...not better. That's nothing more than marketing of an alternative product and not to be confused with facts.4 -
JeepHair77 wrote: »I also want to point out that the dairy industry propaganda implies people NEED dairy products to get necessary nutrients. Those of us who like dairy products aren't falling for the hype, we just find them tasty. <shrug>
Yep. I don't need dairy to get adequate protein, but it is a good source and I enjoy various dairy products.
Every industry tries to convince us that their products are essential or highly advantageous. That's called "marketing". I give you as example number one, the supplement industry. Not to mention the beauty industry, the beef/pork/chicken industries, the vegetable industry, etc.
But the dairy industry convinced the USDA that it deserved representation on the "food pyramid" on which most of us were raised, promoting, through government and medical sources, the belief that dairy, in significant serving numbers (3-7 servings per day), was an essential element of a nutritious diet.
That's not your average marketing scheme by your average retail product.
It kind of is -- although I do think the history of the food pyramid is more complicated.
Meat producers did the same, and grain producers certainly did far better. Yet we can easily go without meat (I'd rather not, but we don't need it for nutrition), and same with grains.3 -
All of this dairy talk brings up an unpopular opinion that I have:
I hate the very concept of alternative milks. Okay, I get it, if you have a medical reason and can't process dairy then use the almond/soy/cashew or whatever milk in your smoothie/coffee/cereal, etc. Or, get Lactiad. I've seen nothing that convinces me that they are healthier or better alternatives to plain ol' dairy. They may be lower calories, but that doesn't automatically make them more nutritious.
I'm cool with alternative milks because they have a historical pedigree. (I am not saying this is a good reason, particularly, I hope I'd be cool with them regardless, but I tend to be affected stupidly by such things.) I like researching old recipes and cuisines, and nut milks played a role in medieval cooking, for example, for various reasons, including the restrictions on dairy during fasting days.
I don't think they are healthier, but they taste different and I actually really like homemade nut milks and coconut milk (which at least until recently no one thought was healthier). Ironically, of course, a homemade cashew milk (which usually includes the nuts and is not just nut flavored) will be higher cal than dairy, and lower protein, but higher fat (like nuts!). (I mostly use it, though, because I usually have cashews around and rarely have milk around, because I don't drink it often enough to buy it, it would go bad.)4 -
Yikes, just glancing in here but had to explain why these opinions based on...I'm not sure...are not popular.cushman5279 wrote: »When people say things like "Oh I am getting a muffin top, I better start doing sit ups" ugh! And when people complain about their weight and their health while they're shoving over processed chemicals and toxins pretending to be food in their mouth! When someone says "I eat healthy and exercise, I don't know why I can't lose weight" duh...
"Toxins" are not why people gain or lose weight for the vast majority, eating more calories than you use is the overwhelming reason people gain weight.cushman5279 wrote: »I am a firm believer in the use of supplementation to help with weight loss, or cutting efforts!
Neither are supplements the reason most people gain or lose weight for the most part (unless they are full of calories), again, it is the intake of more or less calories than you use that is the reason people gain or lose weight.cushman5279 wrote: »Milk/dairy is bad. There's no other species in the world that drinks the bodily fluid of another species... and it's gross. The dairy industry has most people in this world completely fooled!
Completely and utterly wrong: every predator drinks the bodily fluid of another species to survive, some species do this as their main or one of their only nutrient sources like (off the top of my head) mosquitos, bats, ticks, worms, spiders, leeches, ants, humming birds, aphids, many types of insects, etc, etc... Even if you wrote such a thing only humans do, humans actually are the only species to do a lot of things. I don't think the dairy industry ever said anything about this species claim either.cushman5279 wrote: »Obesity is because people are too lazy to educate themselves, too lazy to pick up a product and read a label and WAY to lazy to actually buy, bring home and prepare something. I mean why buy an actual head of broccoli when you can buy it in a bag loaded with cheese sauce and sodium.
"Obesity is because people are too lazy to educate themselves.." hum, I guess I'll just leave that one's popularity alone.
8 -
JeepHair77 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JeepHair77 wrote: »I also want to point out that the dairy industry propaganda implies people NEED dairy products to get necessary nutrients. Those of us who like dairy products aren't falling for the hype, we just find them tasty. <shrug>
Yep. I don't need dairy to get adequate protein, but it is a good source and I enjoy various dairy products.
Every industry tries to convince us that their products are essential or highly advantageous. That's called "marketing". I give you as example number one, the supplement industry. Not to mention the beauty industry, the beef/pork/chicken industries, the vegetable industry, etc.
But the dairy industry convinced the USDA that it deserved representation on the "food pyramid" on which most of us were raised, promoting, through government and medical sources, the belief that dairy, in significant serving numbers (3-7 servings per day), was an essential element of a nutritious diet.
That's not your average marketing scheme by your average retail product.
It was less a matter of "convincing" the USDA than it is that a big part of the mandate of the USDA is to promote the interests of American farmers, many of whom produce dairy. I am not at all surprised to see that the portion of the government charged with promoting the consumption of agricultural products would encourage the consumption of dairy.
(This isn't an attempt to score a point against dairy, it's neutral in my eyes. We just have to realize what the actual mission of the USDA is. We can't fault them for attempting to fulfill their mission).
+1
Good example of that is grains. Because guess what the US produces a lot of - and yet no one with any knowledge claims that grains and grain products are a necessary part of a nutritious diet. We don't need so much as a single serving, and yet there they sit as the base of the old pyramid.
I mean, I find the entire food pyramid suspect, and its history is kind of sordid. The dairy industry lobbied HARD for the position that they have, and I'm not aware of any other industry doing the same (maybe the egg people did? I admit that my memory of this is somewhat fuzzy. I ought to research this more, probably).
It's not so much sordid as it's seeing inside the sausage-making (never that pretty) and churning out a one-size-fits-all prescription, mixed in with the lobbying of the wheat, dairy and meat factions that are part of the USDA organization. A lot of it involves our national economic interests, and there are myriad good and bad aspects of that.
On my hard core gardening days, the food pyramid is perfect for me, because I am going to burn off all that bread* (this weekend I worked for hours on 3 snickerdoodles, a bell pepper, and a glass of milk); but I am racking up the kinds of calorie expenditure that was much more common for people back in the 1950s and 1960s--it's a recipe for disaster for the horrifically sedentary American (or Brit) of today. Also, genetically I am a carb and dairy processing machine, but people with other genetic backgrounds are going to struggle more with fitting in those 2-3 servings of dairy.
Interestingly, in the 1940s, butter was considered to be its own crucial food group--one of seven that you should have every day. Now THAT is some propaganda I can get behind!!
*Bread is also very economical--another crucial concern when your daily job involved things like burning 4,000 calories baling hay and such.3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »
Interestingly, in the 1940s, butter was considered to be its own crucial food group--one of seven that you should have every day. Now THAT is some propaganda I can get behind!!JeepHair77 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JeepHair77 wrote: »I also want to point out that the dairy industry propaganda implies people NEED dairy products to get necessary nutrients. Those of us who like dairy products aren't falling for the hype, we just find them tasty. <shrug>
Yep. I don't need dairy to get adequate protein, but it is a good source and I enjoy various dairy products.
Every industry tries to convince us that their products are essential or highly advantageous. That's called "marketing". I give you as example number one, the supplement industry. Not to mention the beauty industry, the beef/pork/chicken industries, the vegetable industry, etc.
But the dairy industry convinced the USDA that it deserved representation on the "food pyramid" on which most of us were raised, promoting, through government and medical sources, the belief that dairy, in significant serving numbers (3-7 servings per day), was an essential element of a nutritious diet.
That's not your average marketing scheme by your average retail product.
It was less a matter of "convincing" the USDA than it is that a big part of the mandate of the USDA is to promote the interests of American farmers, many of whom produce dairy. I am not at all surprised to see that the portion of the government charged with promoting the consumption of agricultural products would encourage the consumption of dairy.
(This isn't an attempt to score a point against dairy, it's neutral in my eyes. We just have to realize what the actual mission of the USDA is. We can't fault them for attempting to fulfill their mission).
+1
Good example of that is grains. Because guess what the US produces a lot of - and yet no one with any knowledge claims that grains and grain products are a necessary part of a nutritious diet. We don't need so much as a single serving, and yet there they sit as the base of the old pyramid.
I mean, I find the entire food pyramid suspect, and its history is kind of sordid. The dairy industry lobbied HARD for the position that they have, and I'm not aware of any other industry doing the same (maybe the egg people did? I admit that my memory of this is somewhat fuzzy. I ought to research this more, probably).
Wait - it butter NOT a food group?! It's one that I have everyday 11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »All of this dairy talk brings up an unpopular opinion that I have:
I hate the very concept of alternative milks. Okay, I get it, if you have a medical reason and can't process dairy then use the almond/soy/cashew or whatever milk in your smoothie/coffee/cereal, etc. Or, get Lactiad. I've seen nothing that convinces me that they are healthier or better alternatives to plain ol' dairy. They may be lower calories, but that doesn't automatically make them more nutritious.
I'm cool with alternative milks because they have a historical pedigree. (I am not saying this is a good reason, particularly, I hope I'd be cool with them regardless, but I tend to be affected stupidly by such things.) I like researching old recipes and cuisines, and nut milks played a role in medieval cooking, for example, for various reasons, including the restrictions on dairy during fasting days.
I don't think they are healthier, but they taste different and I actually really like homemade nut milks and coconut milk (which at least until recently no one thought was healthier). Ironically, of course, a homemade cashew milk (which usually includes the nuts and is not just nut flavored) will be higher cal than dairy, and lower protein, but higher fat (like nuts!). (I mostly use it, though, because I usually have cashews around and rarely have milk around, because I don't drink it often enough to buy it, it would go bad.)
I fully understand the taste preference and I wouldn't give anyone side eye for choosing to consume them for whatever reason . . just don't be like that one person {or several} on Facebook {or in the office} who thinks you've found the secret to all of life's mysteries in your diet almond milk Shakeology chalk smoothie that you chase with ACV and start shaming the dairy loving folks for eating Greek Yogurt and berries. Just- no. I also had someone I know on FB who has a very limited food budget and wanted to get healthy, but felt that they only way to do that was to drink green smoothies made with expensive fresh produce and almond milk every morning, even though there was no dietary reason for it, even though frozen fruit/veg and dairy would cost half as much. The alterna-milk marketing machine is effective if nothing else
. 5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »All of this dairy talk brings up an unpopular opinion that I have:
I hate the very concept of alternative milks. Okay, I get it, if you have a medical reason and can't process dairy then use the almond/soy/cashew or whatever milk in your smoothie/coffee/cereal, etc. Or, get Lactiad. I've seen nothing that convinces me that they are healthier or better alternatives to plain ol' dairy. They may be lower calories, but that doesn't automatically make them more nutritious.
I'm cool with alternative milks because they have a historical pedigree. (I am not saying this is a good reason, particularly, I hope I'd be cool with them regardless, but I tend to be affected stupidly by such things.) I like researching old recipes and cuisines, and nut milks played a role in medieval cooking, for example, for various reasons, including the restrictions on dairy during fasting days.
I don't think they are healthier, but they taste different and I actually really like homemade nut milks and coconut milk (which at least until recently no one thought was healthier). Ironically, of course, a homemade cashew milk (which usually includes the nuts and is not just nut flavored) will be higher cal than dairy, and lower protein, but higher fat (like nuts!). (I mostly use it, though, because I usually have cashews around and rarely have milk around, because I don't drink it often enough to buy it, it would go bad.)
I fully understand the taste preference and I wouldn't give anyone side eye for choosing to consume them for whatever reason . . just don't be like that one person {or several} on Facebook {or in the office} who thinks you've found the secret to all of life's mysteries in your diet almond milk Shakeology chalk smoothie that you chase with ACV and start shaming the dairy loving folks for eating Greek Yogurt and berries. Just- no. I also had someone I know on FB who has a very limited food budget and wanted to get healthy, but felt that they only way to do that was to drink green smoothies made with expensive fresh produce and almond milk every morning, even though there was no dietary reason for it, even though frozen fruit/veg and dairy would cost half as much. The alterna-milk marketing machine is effective if nothing else.
Yeah nut "milk" and touted as healthier without any evidence is annoying too. The chalky flavor usually ruins any coffee drink for me. Not great flavor and texture, higher calorie and no real health benefits, so why?
I view them as something generally to avoid unless you love the flavor since the protein and general nutritional value is low vs calories. However I did like the taste of one I tried drinking it alone...but the calories were huge for half a glass of "pressed nut dessert" (not milk). 0 -
From a kosher perspective, meat and dairy can't be combined and even cooking milk and meat in the same oven at the same time is problematic. I'm vegetarian and make a lot of multicultural recipes, mostly because Eastern European Jewish cuisine is pretty low on vegetarian mains. But I'm married to a meat-eater and cook meat for him. So, I look to dairy alternatives, mostly so that I can try out certain recipes and cook/heat them up to eat while Hubby is having his meat. I still eat regular dairy, in the form of Greek yogurt and cheese (never been much of a milk-drinker), but for cooking and baking, it's the alternatives.5
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »From a kosher perspective, meat and dairy can't be combined and even cooking milk and meat in the same oven at the same time is problematic. I'm vegetarian and make a lot of multicultural recipes, mostly because Eastern European Jewish cuisine is pretty low on vegetarian mains. But I'm married to a meat-eater and cook meat for him. So, I look to dairy alternatives, mostly so that I can try out certain recipes and cook/heat them up to eat while Hubby is having his meat. I still eat regular dairy, in the form of Greek yogurt and cheese (never been much of a milk-drinker), but for cooking and baking, it's the alternatives.
TBH, I've never even thought about potential religious reasons for it. I wonder if that was part of the historical pedigree that @lemurcat12 mentioned? Thanks for the info
! 1 -
French_Peasant wrote: »
Interestingly, in the 1940s, butter was considered to be its own crucial food group--one of seven that you should have every day. Now THAT is some propaganda I can get behind!!JeepHair77 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JeepHair77 wrote: »I also want to point out that the dairy industry propaganda implies people NEED dairy products to get necessary nutrients. Those of us who like dairy products aren't falling for the hype, we just find them tasty. <shrug>
Yep. I don't need dairy to get adequate protein, but it is a good source and I enjoy various dairy products.
Every industry tries to convince us that their products are essential or highly advantageous. That's called "marketing". I give you as example number one, the supplement industry. Not to mention the beauty industry, the beef/pork/chicken industries, the vegetable industry, etc.
But the dairy industry convinced the USDA that it deserved representation on the "food pyramid" on which most of us were raised, promoting, through government and medical sources, the belief that dairy, in significant serving numbers (3-7 servings per day), was an essential element of a nutritious diet.
That's not your average marketing scheme by your average retail product.
It was less a matter of "convincing" the USDA than it is that a big part of the mandate of the USDA is to promote the interests of American farmers, many of whom produce dairy. I am not at all surprised to see that the portion of the government charged with promoting the consumption of agricultural products would encourage the consumption of dairy.
(This isn't an attempt to score a point against dairy, it's neutral in my eyes. We just have to realize what the actual mission of the USDA is. We can't fault them for attempting to fulfill their mission).
+1
Good example of that is grains. Because guess what the US produces a lot of - and yet no one with any knowledge claims that grains and grain products are a necessary part of a nutritious diet. We don't need so much as a single serving, and yet there they sit as the base of the old pyramid.
I mean, I find the entire food pyramid suspect, and its history is kind of sordid. The dairy industry lobbied HARD for the position that they have, and I'm not aware of any other industry doing the same (maybe the egg people did? I admit that my memory of this is somewhat fuzzy. I ought to research this more, probably).
Wait - it butter NOT a food group?! It's one that I have everyday
Big Butter better watch out! I hear the Avocado Lobby is fighting for its place in the food pyramid
10 -
Oooh, we love milk alternatives in this house.All of this dairy talk brings up an unpopular opinion that I have:
I hate the very concept of alternative milks. Okay, I get it, if you have a medical reason and can't process dairy then use the almond/soy/cashew or whatever milk in your smoothie/coffee/cereal, etc. Or, get Lactiad. I've seen nothing that convinces me that they are healthier or better alternatives to plain ol' dairy. They may be lower calories, but that doesn't automatically make them more nutritious.
There's a long tradition of them. And they are fine by us.
Oh, and you can buy them by the case at costco and they don't spoil!2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »All of this dairy talk brings up an unpopular opinion that I have:
I hate the very concept of alternative milks. Okay, I get it, if you have a medical reason and can't process dairy then use the almond/soy/cashew or whatever milk in your smoothie/coffee/cereal, etc. Or, get Lactiad. I've seen nothing that convinces me that they are healthier or better alternatives to plain ol' dairy. They may be lower calories, but that doesn't automatically make them more nutritious.
I'm cool with alternative milks because they have a historical pedigree. (I am not saying this is a good reason, particularly, I hope I'd be cool with them regardless, but I tend to be affected stupidly by such things.) I like researching old recipes and cuisines, and nut milks played a role in medieval cooking, for example, for various reasons, including the restrictions on dairy during fasting days.
I don't think they are healthier, but they taste different and I actually really like homemade nut milks and coconut milk (which at least until recently no one thought was healthier). Ironically, of course, a homemade cashew milk (which usually includes the nuts and is not just nut flavored) will be higher cal than dairy, and lower protein, but higher fat (like nuts!). (I mostly use it, though, because I usually have cashews around and rarely have milk around, because I don't drink it often enough to buy it, it would go bad.)
I fully understand the taste preference and I wouldn't give anyone side eye for choosing to consume them for whatever reason . . just don't be like that one person {or several} on Facebook {or in the office} who thinks you've found the secret to all of life's mysteries in your diet almond milk Shakeology chalk smoothie that you chase with ACV and start shaming the dairy loving folks for eating Greek Yogurt and berries. Just- no. I also had someone I know on FB who has a very limited food budget and wanted to get healthy, but felt that they only way to do that was to drink green smoothies made with expensive fresh produce and almond milk every morning, even though there was no dietary reason for it, even though frozen fruit/veg and dairy would cost half as much. The alterna-milk marketing machine is effective if nothing else.
Oh, yeah, I totally agree with this. I always find it odd when people on MFP assume that an important thing to do (for health, not calories) is switching to almond milk. I mean, I like almond milk, the store stuff is flavored water with some vitamins added, so of course it's lower cal (at least the kind without lots of sugar added), but it's pretty much expensive water with vitamins, so only healthier if you think there's something bad about milk, which I don't.*
*Of course I might be a baby cow.8 -
It's HARDER with hypothyroid, but it STILL comes down to CICO. You CAN'T gain MASS by eating less than you burn. You can retain water, but that's not REAL weight in terms of body composition (lean mass and fat).007dualitygirl wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
Not true. Hypothyroid causes me much grief. If I eat too little, all metabolic hell breaks lose and I gain weight. There is a balance that is required. Many times people are eating TOO FEW calories and their body is on lockdown.
A calculator can say "you burned 1500 calories today" and you can eat 1000 calories, but if in reality, you only burned 1000 calories that day because you have metabolic syndrome or hypothyroidism, you will not see results at all.
Point being that you have to take responsibility for increasing your metabolism along with keeping your caloric intake at bay.
That being said, if there are no real metabolic issues -- then I totally agree.
For metabolic issues, FIX the metabolism problem ... people say they have a slow metabolism while drinking alcohol everyday, never lifting weights to increase muscle mass, never doing HiiT cardio ... never working on their stress levels ... etc -- well that is irresponsible.
I'm going to go have my wine now and stop complaining about how I can't lose 20 pounds
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Oh yes the legendary "fake" weight then it must be?
If its not lean mass or fat mass, what could it be?
Water is lean mass
Water is as important in your body composition as your clothes, and almost as easily lost and gained.3 -
And to get super meta: If your opinion is can be objectively classified as true or untrue, it's not an opinion, it's a statement.10
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »From a kosher perspective, meat and dairy can't be combined and even cooking milk and meat in the same oven at the same time is problematic. I'm vegetarian and make a lot of multicultural recipes, mostly because Eastern European Jewish cuisine is pretty low on vegetarian mains. But I'm married to a meat-eater and cook meat for him. So, I look to dairy alternatives, mostly so that I can try out certain recipes and cook/heat them up to eat while Hubby is having his meat. I still eat regular dairy, in the form of Greek yogurt and cheese (never been much of a milk-drinker), but for cooking and baking, it's the alternatives.
Get that man a grill and an appropriately manly apron, and some cool tongs and other accoutrements, and tell him to get his butt to work. (But not pork butt...not kosher).2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Take my cheese and I will cut you.
Oh, like I'm scared of your cheese knife!
Well I'm Scottish, my cheese knife is more like a cutlass......
You can cut the cheese and then pin your kilt shut with it.
4 -
I have a vegan (and epic pretty terrible person, I keep her for the carcrash can't look away element) on my FB and she posted a meme about people asking where they get their protein with an image of almond milk. Oh how I laughed.7
-
VintageFeline wrote: »I have a vegan (and epic pretty terrible person, I keep her for the carcrash can't look away element) on my FB and she posted a meme about people asking where they get their protein with an image of almond milk. Oh how I laughed.
I have a particular hate for almond milk in terms of the cost to the environment, but I haven't researched that in a while, so I could admittedly be off based about it. I thought at one point I read that it took insane amounts of water to grow almonds, and the almond milk industry has increased demand so much that it was contributing to the strain in certain drought areas. It kinda leads me into a rant about water -_- . . . not ALL water, just bottled water and anything and everything produced by Nestle (to include food products and subsidiaries!), but that's another topic altogether
*whew* that feels kinda good3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I have a vegan (and epic pretty terrible person, I keep her for the carcrash can't look away element) on my FB and she posted a meme about people asking where they get their protein with an image of almond milk. Oh how I laughed.
I have a particular hate for almond milk in terms of the cost to the environment, but I haven't researched that in a while, so I could admittedly be off based about it. I thought at one point I read that it took insane amounts of water to grow almonds, and the almond milk industry has increased demand so much that it was contributing to the strain in certain drought areas. It kinda leads me into a rant about water -_- . . . not ALL water, just bottled water and anything and everything produced by Nestle (to include food products and subsidiaries!), but that's another topic altogether
*whew* that feels kinda good
I've never understood why bottled water seems to arouse more outrage, environmentally speaking, than soda/pop or beer, among other beverages. They all involved taking a bunch of water, putting it in bottles, and shipping it all over the place. Do the sugar/sweetener and flavorings somehow remove the taint, despite being a small percentage by volume?
Does the cows drinking the water in order to create milk somehow exonerate dairy drinks, compared to bottled water?
Even wine and pure, fresh juices simply run the water through the precipitation cycle, before making the beverage - does that make it less environmentally worrisome?
(I'm not stumping for Big Bev here: I drink mostly faucet water, and put that back into the local water table via septic system. I'm genuinely puzzled about the narrow bottled water focus of activism.)4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I have a vegan (and epic pretty terrible person, I keep her for the carcrash can't look away element) on my FB and she posted a meme about people asking where they get their protein with an image of almond milk. Oh how I laughed.
I have a particular hate for almond milk in terms of the cost to the environment, but I haven't researched that in a while, so I could admittedly be off based about it. I thought at one point I read that it took insane amounts of water to grow almonds, and the almond milk industry has increased demand so much that it was contributing to the strain in certain drought areas. It kinda leads me into a rant about water -_- . . . not ALL water, just bottled water and anything and everything produced by Nestle (to include food products and subsidiaries!), but that's another topic altogether
*whew* that feels kinda good
I've never understood why bottled water seems to arouse more outrage, environmentally speaking, than soda/pop or beer, among other beverages. They all involved taking a bunch of water, putting it in bottles, and shipping it all over the place. Do the sugar/sweetener and flavorings somehow remove the taint, despite being a small percentage by volume?
Does the cows drinking the water in order to create milk somehow exonerate dairy drinks, compared to bottled water?
Even wine and pure, fresh juices simply run the water through the precipitation cycle, before making the beverage - does that make it less environmentally worrisome?
(I'm not stumping for Big Bev here: I drink mostly faucet water, and put that back into the local water table via septic system. I'm genuinely puzzled about the narrow bottled water focus of activism.)
I always figured it was because I can't just go to my faucet and refill my bottle with anything but water. Oh, how good that would be.4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I have a vegan (and epic pretty terrible person, I keep her for the carcrash can't look away element) on my FB and she posted a meme about people asking where they get their protein with an image of almond milk. Oh how I laughed.
I have a particular hate for almond milk in terms of the cost to the environment, but I haven't researched that in a while, so I could admittedly be off based about it. I thought at one point I read that it took insane amounts of water to grow almonds, and the almond milk industry has increased demand so much that it was contributing to the strain in certain drought areas. It kinda leads me into a rant about water -_- . . . not ALL water, just bottled water and anything and everything produced by Nestle (to include food products and subsidiaries!), but that's another topic altogether
*whew* that feels kinda good
I've never understood why bottled water seems to arouse more outrage, environmentally speaking, than soda/pop or beer, among other beverages. They all involved taking a bunch of water, putting it in bottles, and shipping it all over the place. Do the sugar/sweetener and flavorings somehow remove the taint, despite being a small percentage by volume?
Does the cows drinking the water in order to create milk somehow exonerate dairy drinks, compared to bottled water?
Even wine and pure, fresh juices simply run the water through the precipitation cycle, before making the beverage - does that make it less environmentally worrisome?
(I'm not stumping for Big Bev here: I drink mostly faucet water, and put that back into the local water table via septic system. I'm genuinely puzzled about the narrow bottled water focus of activism.)
From what I've seen when people expound upon it, the outrage comes from the fact that bottled water is bottled, and the plastic bottles are extra waste/garbage (but every other beverage you buy is canned/bottled too, so it's kind of a head scratcher to me). I guess the line of thought is that you should use refillable bottles and cut down on the waste.1 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I have a vegan (and epic pretty terrible person, I keep her for the carcrash can't look away element) on my FB and she posted a meme about people asking where they get their protein with an image of almond milk. Oh how I laughed.
I have a particular hate for almond milk in terms of the cost to the environment, but I haven't researched that in a while, so I could admittedly be off based about it. I thought at one point I read that it took insane amounts of water to grow almonds, and the almond milk industry has increased demand so much that it was contributing to the strain in certain drought areas. It kinda leads me into a rant about water -_- . . . not ALL water, just bottled water and anything and everything produced by Nestle (to include food products and subsidiaries!), but that's another topic altogether
*whew* that feels kinda good
I've never understood why bottled water seems to arouse more outrage, environmentally speaking, than soda/pop or beer, among other beverages. They all involved taking a bunch of water, putting it in bottles, and shipping it all over the place. Do the sugar/sweetener and flavorings somehow remove the taint, despite being a small percentage by volume?
Does the cows drinking the water in order to create milk somehow exonerate dairy drinks, compared to bottled water?
Even wine and pure, fresh juices simply run the water through the precipitation cycle, before making the beverage - does that make it less environmentally worrisome?
(I'm not stumping for Big Bev here: I drink mostly faucet water, and put that back into the local water table via septic system. I'm genuinely puzzled about the narrow bottled water focus of activism.)
I always figured it was because I can't just go to my faucet and refill my bottle with anything but water. Oh, how good that would be.
It's probably a very good thing I don't have Dr. Pepper on tap!4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I have a vegan (and epic pretty terrible person, I keep her for the carcrash can't look away element) on my FB and she posted a meme about people asking where they get their protein with an image of almond milk. Oh how I laughed.
I have a particular hate for almond milk in terms of the cost to the environment, but I haven't researched that in a while, so I could admittedly be off based about it. I thought at one point I read that it took insane amounts of water to grow almonds, and the almond milk industry has increased demand so much that it was contributing to the strain in certain drought areas. It kinda leads me into a rant about water -_- . . . not ALL water, just bottled water and anything and everything produced by Nestle (to include food products and subsidiaries!), but that's another topic altogether
*whew* that feels kinda good
I've never understood why bottled water seems to arouse more outrage, environmentally speaking, than soda/pop or beer, among other beverages. They all involved taking a bunch of water, putting it in bottles, and shipping it all over the place. Do the sugar/sweetener and flavorings somehow remove the taint, despite being a small percentage by volume?
Does the cows drinking the water in order to create milk somehow exonerate dairy drinks, compared to bottled water?
Even wine and pure, fresh juices simply run the water through the precipitation cycle, before making the beverage - does that make it less environmentally worrisome?
(I'm not stumping for Big Bev here: I drink mostly faucet water, and put that back into the local water table via septic system. I'm genuinely puzzled about the narrow bottled water focus of activism.)
I can't speak for others, but my personal objections are with water companies (namely Nestle) that monetize a natural resource found in disadvantaged areas and then turn around and charge local populations hundreds of times more for the water than what the company paid for it. Keep in mind, in many cases this is a resource that they had access to for free prior to the company securing the water rights from an (often corrupt) government.
That's not to say that I never use plastic bottles or drink bottled water. I refuse to purchase Nestle products, and whenever possible I try to choose companies with ethical business practices. I'm a sucker for seltzer, though, and I drink probably 2 Polar waters a day. I just make sure and recycle the bottles after my dogs finish playing with them 9 -
That you don't need pre workouts or protein shakes or any other supplement.
Tell a newb to eat healthy and get his/her nutrition from food and they go wild. People wanna believe in the magic of the protein powder.8 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I have a vegan (and epic pretty terrible person, I keep her for the carcrash can't look away element) on my FB and she posted a meme about people asking where they get their protein with an image of almond milk. Oh how I laughed.
I have a particular hate for almond milk in terms of the cost to the environment, but I haven't researched that in a while, so I could admittedly be off based about it. I thought at one point I read that it took insane amounts of water to grow almonds, and the almond milk industry has increased demand so much that it was contributing to the strain in certain drought areas. It kinda leads me into a rant about water -_- . . . not ALL water, just bottled water and anything and everything produced by Nestle (to include food products and subsidiaries!), but that's another topic altogether
*whew* that feels kinda good
I've never understood why bottled water seems to arouse more outrage, environmentally speaking, than soda/pop or beer, among other beverages. They all involved taking a bunch of water, putting it in bottles, and shipping it all over the place. Do the sugar/sweetener and flavorings somehow remove the taint, despite being a small percentage by volume?
Does the cows drinking the water in order to create milk somehow exonerate dairy drinks, compared to bottled water?
Even wine and pure, fresh juices simply run the water through the precipitation cycle, before making the beverage - does that make it less environmentally worrisome?
(I'm not stumping for Big Bev here: I drink mostly faucet water, and put that back into the local water table via septic system. I'm genuinely puzzled about the narrow bottled water focus of activism.)
I always figured it was because I can't just go to my faucet and refill my bottle with anything but water. Oh, how good that would be.
It's probably a very good thing I don't have Dr. Pepper on tap!
I had a picture pop into my head of what I would look like if I had DP on tap at my house...not pretty.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions