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?

1291292294296297358

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    My unpopular opinion is that jogging is awful, running is even worse, but sprinting is fun. Running is exhausting and not actually that fast and there's better methods of cardio to lose weight. At least with sprinting you're going really fast and being slightly exhausted at the end is kind of the point. Try to look up a sprinting program, though, and nothing.

    All those girls who tell me I can't lose weight without tons of running... ugh.

    Running being exhausting seems like an extremely subjective thing. I mean, yeah, it burns energy (like lots of activities), but if you're properly conditioned, you should be able to run for quite a while. And I can't really understand why being exhausted at the end of sprinting is acceptable because it's the point (why is it the point of sprinting only, why can't it also be part of some running workouts?).

    I don't think many people choose running because they think it's the fastest form of transportation.

    I don't run to lose weight. I run to run, I run because it's one of the funnest activities for me. I get it's not for everyone, but these objections seem really odd.

    Honestly, my argument wasn't super thought out because I was more frustrated with my own lack of ability with jogging/running, and I had dealt with a bunch of people teasing me about it at my college gym.

    That sucks. I love running, but I completely understand that is isn't for everyone. Sorry you were teased for it.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Texas Chili competitions, the only ones that matter, will disqualify you for putting beans in a stew and calling it chili.

    I really don't care what the yankees up in Ohio do with their stews.

    IT'S NOT STEW! Ground beef does not a stew make.
    earlnabby wrote: »
    We have a restaurant locally called "Real Chili" and you can get your chili either over noodles (macaroni, not spaghetti), potatoes, or neither. Greasy spoon and a great place to stop after bar time.

    Again, noodles are not pasta, noodles are Asian, pasta is Italian and chili shouldn't be served with either. I'll let the potatoes pass.

    This is all correct.

    My family's cuisine is Eastern-European. "Lukshen" (i.e. egg noodles) are a thing in soup and casseroles. I wouldn't really class them as Asian nor Italian.

    Yeah, I actually agree that central European noodles (and Eastern too) are a thing, they are the first I had, and I would agree that noodles is the generic and includes pasta. Clarified in a post on noodles specifically after the one you quoted. (Noodle casserole was a thing in '70s midwestern and western US cuisine too, but one I opted out of strenuously and am glad is less common too, although I found the cream of mushroom soup or canned tuna or ruining perfectly good leftover turkey the real crimes thereof.)

    I do agree with what I saw as the key points of VintageFeline's post (not all that seriously) re stew and chili with noodles.

    I'll give you the inclusion of Eatern European, I was making sweeping statements, as you do.

    The thing about noodles as a catch all is it's conversationally clunky. "What's for dinner?", "Noodles", What type of noodles?", "Pasta". We could have got there without the middle two sentences; "Dinner?", "Pasta". One and done.

    The conversation tends to go more like "What's for dinner" "Tuna noodle casserole". End of conversation. The type of noodle would only come up when one is asking for the recipe. "What noodles do you use in your pasta salad?" "Tri-color shells"

    Tuna noodle casserole. My head just exploded. Not only do you have the wrong use of noodle but also the wrong use of casserole.

    I WANT MY LANGUAGE BACK*

    *Says the Scot who has never spoken a word of Gaelic in her life and has in fact also appropriated English.

    What do you call a "casserole"? Around here, it is a one dish meal where all the ingredients are mixed together and baked in a casserole dish.

    Easier to explain that pasta in the oven is pasta bake. Casseroles are basically stews (but the British definition of stew) cooked in a casserole dish in the oven. Hence casserole. I think it might even be of French origin. We don't call everything plopped in a dish and put in the oven a casserole. I'm also sure I had this discussion about 100 pages back but let's face it, who knows what *kitten* is going on anymore in this thread!

    Wiki is possibly helpful here. It says:
    A casserole (French: diminutive of casse, from Provençal cassa "pan"[1]) is a large, deep dish used both in the oven and as a serving vessel. The word is also used for the food cooked and served in such a vessel, with the cookware itself called a casserole dish or casserole pan.

    In the United States and continental Europe casseroles usually consist of pieces of meat (such as chicken) or fish (such as tuna), various chopped vegetables, a starchy binder such as flour, rice, potato or pasta, and often a crunchy or cheesy topping.[2] Liquids are released from the meat and vegetables during cooking, and further liquid in the form of stock, wine, beer (for example lapin à la Gueuze), gin, cider, or vegetable juice may be added when the dish is assembled. Casseroles are usually cooked slowly in the oven, often uncovered. They may be served as a main course or a side dish, and may be served in the vessel in which they were cooked.

    In the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, a casserole is named after its dish, rather than its contents. Casseroles in these countries are very similar to stews. The difference is that once the meat and vegetables are browned on top of the stove, they are then cooked in liquid in the oven in a closed dish, producing meat that is tender and juicy, from long slow cooking. The heat is indirect, so there is less chance of burning.

    Examples of casserole include ragout, Lancashire hotpot, cassoulet, tajine, moussaka, shepherd's pie, gratin, rice or macaroni timballo, and carbonnade. A distinction can be made between casseroles and stews: stewing is a cooking process whereby heat is applied to the bottom of the cooking vessel (typically over a fire or on a stove), whereas casserole is generally baked in an oven, where heat circulates all around the cooking vessel. Casseroles may be cooked covered or uncovered, while braises are typically covered to prevent evaporation.

    I would question tagine if the dish is named after the dish, however, because obviously a casserole dish and a tagine are different.

    I'd normally cook a stew on the stove (although it can be put in the oven too) and -- key difference -- in a covered pot, which is much deeper than a casserole dish. I'd also normally cook a stew for a longer time on lower temperatures and a casserole more like an hour at 375 or 400.

    I HATED most casseroles as a kid since in 1970s America they were a repository for leftovers, cream of mushroom soup (which is evil) and canned tuna (which I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I find disgusting and one of the only fish-based foods I dislike). Also, I didn't like food to touch each other much as a kid. However I loved my mom's lasagna and I learned at some point (probably for "make a recipe from another culture and bring it in" project in school) to do moussaka, which I also love).

    We have stews that are not casseroles. As with you, a stew would be done on the stovetop (or in a slow cooker). Another fun fact, my little slow cooker also comes with a tagine lid. I know not of what purpose this serves.......other than it looking a bit fancier while cooking!
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited September 2017
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    It's unpopular to say that you exercise for calories, many often feel the goal would be superior if it's done for fitness. I exercise for calories and I don't mind not being superior. Fitness and enjoyment are just pleasant side effects.

    Many would discourage eating when not hungry. I don't find anything wrong with that. If my calories are accounted for, you bet your boots I'm going to eat hedonically and enjoy every single bite without the least bit of guilt, and I don't consider it to be an unhealthy relationship with food. I think it's perfectly normal to eat for the sole purpose of enjoying food as long as it's not detrimental to the weight loss process as a whole.

    Many people would consider going very low on calories after a high calorie day to be detrimental and something that could fuel a binge and restrict mentality. I'm not afraid of these tactics because I've never had an eating disorder and it's all calculated, planned, and relatively anxiety-free. I do it as a "naturally thin people mimicking" strategy not as a punishment. The way you mentally approach such a practice makes all the difference.

    If a high protein diet is not sustainable I feel it's perfectly okay to eat as much protein as is reasonably manageable. I feel for some people "high protein" is the new "low carb" (which was the new "low fat"), that is, a rigid panic inducing requirement for weight loss with no middle ground. A person's goals don't need to be identical to everyone else's, so if slightly higher muscle loss (the difference is not even that large) is an acceptable tradeoff for someone, then so be it.

    I don't believe that crash dieting is always bad. I'm very careful when I voice this opinion and I don't voice it often because it may be mistaken for promoting crash dieting for everyone, but there are cases where I believe it could be okay.

    I don't think people "need" to lift any more than they "need" to run. It's perfectly okay to not enjoy lifting and you're not inferior if you don't.

    Yes, I like using the treadmill. Sue me.

    Thsnk you for the comment on lifting. Lots of lifters look down on those who dont lift. I do what i enjoy, lots of different things

    You do realize that resistance exercise is recommended by the CDC for sustained good health? It's not just the domain of some bros who want to flex in too tight t-shirts.

    https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/adults/index.htm

    Thing is, you can get resistance without ever knowing what a barbell looks like. There is this idea that if you aren't under a barbell you're doing it wrong. Sure, that's an efficient way of doing it, but it's not the only one. You have no idea how much strength, grip strength, coordination, balance, flexibility, and focus rock climbing requires, just to list an example.

    Understand and agree. That is why I specifically said resistance training as opposed to "weight lifting". I would assume that is also why the CDC refers to it as muscle strengthening activity.

    Resistance training is important for long term health and vitality. Most people don't get enough in their jobs/daily life.
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,285 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    Texas Chili competitions, the only ones that matter, will disqualify you for putting beans in a stew and calling it chili.

    I really don't care what the yankees up in Ohio do with their stews.

    IT'S NOT STEW! Ground beef does not a stew make.
    earlnabby wrote: »
    We have a restaurant locally called "Real Chili" and you can get your chili either over noodles (macaroni, not spaghetti), potatoes, or neither. Greasy spoon and a great place to stop after bar time.

    Again, noodles are not pasta, noodles are Asian, pasta is Italian and chili shouldn't be served with either. I'll let the potatoes pass.

    This is all correct.

    My family's cuisine is Eastern-European. "Lukshen" (i.e. egg noodles) are a thing in soup and casseroles. I wouldn't really class them as Asian nor Italian.

    Yeah, I actually agree that central European noodles (and Eastern too) are a thing, they are the first I had, and I would agree that noodles is the generic and includes pasta. Clarified in a post on noodles specifically after the one you quoted. (Noodle casserole was a thing in '70s midwestern and western US cuisine too, but one I opted out of strenuously and am glad is less common too, although I found the cream of mushroom soup or canned tuna or ruining perfectly good leftover turkey the real crimes thereof.)

    I do agree with what I saw as the key points of VintageFeline's post (not all that seriously) re stew and chili with noodles.

    I'll give you the inclusion of Eatern European, I was making sweeping statements, as you do.

    The thing about noodles as a catch all is it's conversationally clunky. "What's for dinner?", "Noodles", What type of noodles?", "Pasta". We could have got there without the middle two sentences; "Dinner?", "Pasta". One and done.

    The conversation tends to go more like "What's for dinner" "Tuna noodle casserole". End of conversation. The type of noodle would only come up when one is asking for the recipe. "What noodles do you use in your pasta salad?" "Tri-color shells"

    Tuna noodle casserole. My head just exploded. Not only do you have the wrong use of noodle but also the wrong use of casserole.

    I WANT MY LANGUAGE BACK*





    *Says the Scot who has never spoken a word of Gaelic in her life and has in fact also appropriated English.

    Well, if you're interested in another language from the same branch of the tree... Duolingo offers Welsh. (And despite having no cultural connection with the language whatsoever, my love for Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising Sequence and Madeleine L'Engle's Time Quartet have intrigued me enough to try picking it up. Though, as you'd expect, comprehension and spoken fluency are two radically different things...)

    I loved both of those series as a kid, and I actually am part Welsh. I should learn at least how to pronounce things so if I ever go to the relevant villages and areas I will not butcher their names too badly (although it's probably a fait accompli!). ;-)

    Random Welsh aside--Shakespeare adored a comic Welsh accent, and has a joke in Merry Wives about the Welsh loving cheese to excess, which was amusingly weird enough. Then I came across (on some historians blog somewhere, in a piece about old humor), this from 1526:

    "I find written among old stories how God made Saint Peter port of Heaven, and how God, in his goodness soon after his suffering on the cross allowed many men to come to the kingdom of heaven who very little deserved it. So at this time there were in heaven a lot of Welshmen, who troubled all the rest with their boasting and chatter. So God said to Saint Peter that he was fed up with them, and that he’d be very glad to have them out of heaven. Saint Peter replied to him, “Good lord, I guarantee that it will be done in no time.” So Saint Peter went outside the gates of heaven and shouted in a loud voice, “Cause bobe!” which is as much as to say, “Roasted cheese.”

    When they heard this the Welshmen ran out of heaven at great speed. And when Saint Peter saw that they were all outside, he quickly went in to Heaven and locked the door, and so he barred all the Welshmen out."

    I think this may suggest that in the 16th and 17th centuries the Welsh were afflicted with cheese culture!

    LOL! According to my lessons, it'd be 'caws' rather than 'cause'. But English spellings have changed in the last few centuries, too. (Not sure on bobe. It's not a word I've come across yet.)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    That's probably an English interpretation of the Welsh word, also.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,945 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    Oh noez the cake culture today!

    Family birthday party for the September birthdays (happens to by my own kids this time). I was one of the last people to get a piece of cake, several minutes after just about everyone else was served. No one even noticed, or at least mentioned, that I didn't have cake yet! I must be invisible or something :cry:

    Don't worry, I got myself cake when I was ready.

    Man, now cake culture is getting exclusionary....
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,279 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    Oh noez the cake culture today!

    Family birthday party for the September birthdays (happens to by my own kids this time). I was one of the last people to get a piece of cake, several minutes after just about everyone else was served. No one even noticed, or at least mentioned, that I didn't have cake yet! I must be invisible or something :cry:

    Don't worry, I got myself cake when I was ready.

    There has just been a discussion, in a totally different online group I belong to (for people aging without immediate family), arguing that women, as we age, become socially invisible. That's probably why no one noticed you didn't get cake. Uh ohz!

    (In case it's inobvious to the casual observer: I'm joking. I don't, IRL, subscribe to the "invisibility theory". But a surprising number of people do.)
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    Oh noez the cake culture today!

    Family birthday party for the September birthdays (happens to by my own kids this time). I was one of the last people to get a piece of cake, several minutes after just about everyone else was served. No one even noticed, or at least mentioned, that I didn't have cake yet! I must be invisible or something :cry:

    Don't worry, I got myself cake when I was ready.

    There has just been a discussion, in a totally different online group I belong to (for people aging without immediate family), arguing that women, as we age, become socially invisible. That's probably why no one noticed you didn't get cake. Uh ohz!

    (In case it's inobvious to the casual observer: I'm joking. I don't, IRL, subscribe to the "invisibility theory". But a surprising number of people do.)

    I don't know. As my mom has aged, she's gotten louder. It's pretty hard to pretend she's invisible. I think that as the internet has become increasing popular, it's not just aging women who are becoming invisible. Just my initial thoughts on it.
  • Hungry_Shopgirl
    Hungry_Shopgirl Posts: 329 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    Oh noez the cake culture today!

    Family birthday party for the September birthdays (happens to by my own kids this time). I was one of the last people to get a piece of cake, several minutes after just about everyone else was served. No one even noticed, or at least mentioned, that I didn't have cake yet! I must be invisible or something :cry:

    Don't worry, I got myself cake when I was ready.

    There has just been a discussion, in a totally different online group I belong to (for people aging without immediate family), arguing that women, as we age, become socially invisible. That's probably why no one noticed you didn't get cake. Uh ohz!

    (In case it's inobvious to the casual observer: I'm joking. I don't, IRL, subscribe to the "invisibility theory". But a surprising number of people do.)

    I don't know. As my mom has aged, she's gotten louder. It's pretty hard to pretend she's invisible. I think that as the internet has become increasing popular, it's not just aging women who are becoming invisible. Just my initial thoughts on it.

    The poster specifically mentioned that the discussion was about people aging "without immediate family". Your mother has you, so she has immediate family. The situation may be quite different for single women aging. One of my best friends is mid fifties, never married, and I can see lots of differences in how aging affects her versus my mom (who's the same age).
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    edited September 2017
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    Oh noez the cake culture today!

    Family birthday party for the September birthdays (happens to by my own kids this time). I was one of the last people to get a piece of cake, several minutes after just about everyone else was served. No one even noticed, or at least mentioned, that I didn't have cake yet! I must be invisible or something :cry:

    Don't worry, I got myself cake when I was ready.

    There has just been a discussion, in a totally different online group I belong to (for people aging without immediate family), arguing that women, as we age, become socially invisible. That's probably why no one noticed you didn't get cake. Uh ohz!

    (In case it's inobvious to the casual observer: I'm joking. I don't, IRL, subscribe to the "invisibility theory". But a surprising number of people do.)

    I don't know. As my mom has aged, she's gotten louder. It's pretty hard to pretend she's invisible. I think that as the internet has become increasing popular, it's not just aging women who are becoming invisible. Just my initial thoughts on it.

    The poster specifically mentioned that the discussion was about people aging "without immediate family". Your mother has you, so she has immediate family. The situation may be quite different for single women aging. One of my best friends is mid fifties, never married, and I can see lots of differences in how aging affects her versus my mom (who's the same age).

    The first sentence was tongue in cheek. However, having a child doesn't necessarily mean that will contribute to an increased connection. It depends considerably on the relationship. It would also depend on the individual personality type and other connections and community which they have developed for themselves.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 26,279 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    Oh noez the cake culture today!

    Family birthday party for the September birthdays (happens to by my own kids this time). I was one of the last people to get a piece of cake, several minutes after just about everyone else was served. No one even noticed, or at least mentioned, that I didn't have cake yet! I must be invisible or something :cry:

    Don't worry, I got myself cake when I was ready.

    There has just been a discussion, in a totally different online group I belong to (for people aging without immediate family), arguing that women, as we age, become socially invisible. That's probably why no one noticed you didn't get cake. Uh ohz!

    (In case it's inobvious to the casual observer: I'm joking. I don't, IRL, subscribe to the "invisibility theory". But a surprising number of people do.)

    I don't know. As my mom has aged, she's gotten louder. It's pretty hard to pretend she's invisible. I think that as the internet has become increasing popular, it's not just aging women who are becoming invisible. Just my initial thoughts on it.

    The poster specifically mentioned that the discussion was about people aging "without immediate family". Your mother has you, so she has immediate family. The situation may be quite different for single women aging. One of my best friends is mid fifties, never married, and I can see lots of differences in how aging affects her versus my mom (who's the same age).

    I'm the poster. The discussion was in a group for people aging alone (both sexes, BTW, but there are, unsurprisingly, more female than male members). I think those who believe women become invisible as they age would say it applies to most any women, possibly excluding rich or famous ones. My understanding of the argument - which, I repeat, I found silly - was that the world at large only values us for attractiveness, and when we get old we aren't attractive, so we're invisible and everyone ignores us. I'm quite certain they'd say that an aging woman's alleged invisibility has nothing to do with her own attitudes or behavior, but only to do with how the world sees her . . . or rather, doesn't. I think it's complete nonsense (and I'm over 60, widowed for 19 years, no kids).

    What I said here was meant as a joke. The whole proposition seemed nonsensical to the point of being humorous. And now I'm kinda sorry I brought it up. ;)
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,484 Member
    edited September 2017
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mathjulz wrote: »
    Oh noez the cake culture today!

    Family birthday party for the September birthdays (happens to by my own kids this time). I was one of the last people to get a piece of cake, several minutes after just about everyone else was served. No one even noticed, or at least mentioned, that I didn't have cake yet! I must be invisible or something :cry:

    Don't worry, I got myself cake when I was ready.

    There has just been a discussion, in a totally different online group I belong to (for people aging without immediate family), arguing that women, as we age, become socially invisible. That's probably why no one noticed you didn't get cake. Uh ohz!

    (In case it's inobvious to the casual observer: I'm joking. I don't, IRL, subscribe to the "invisibility theory". But a surprising number of people do.)

    I don't know. As my mom has aged, she's gotten louder. It's pretty hard to pretend she's invisible. I think that as the internet has become increasing popular, it's not just aging women who are becoming invisible. Just my initial thoughts on it.

    The poster specifically mentioned that the discussion was about people aging "without immediate family". Your mother has you, so she has immediate family. The situation may be quite different for single women aging. One of my best friends is mid fifties, never married, and I can see lots of differences in how aging affects her versus my mom (who's the same age).

    I'm the poster. The discussion was in a group for people aging alone (both sexes, BTW, but there are, unsurprisingly, more female than male members). I think those who believe women become invisible as they age would say it applies to most any women, possibly excluding rich or famous ones. My understanding of the argument - which, I repeat, I found silly - was that the world at large only values us for attractiveness, and when we get old we aren't attractive, so we're invisible and everyone ignores us. I'm quite certain they'd say that an aging woman's alleged invisibility has nothing to do with her own attitudes or behavior, but only to do with how the world sees her . . . or rather, doesn't. I think it's complete nonsense (and I'm over 60, widowed for 19 years, no kids).

    What I said here was meant as a joke. The whole proposition seemed nonsensical to the point of being humorous. And now I'm kinda sorry I brought it up. ;)

    I spent a lot of time in a lot of different elder care facilities in the past (for a previous career and I was the guardian of an elderly family member for several years). A few observations:

    1) there were a lot of women and only a handful of men (wow, no kidding?)

    2) there were very few who were overweight

    3) most were socially isolated. People are living so much longer and life is so hectic now, we generally don't take the time to prioritize and value the elderly. I don't think it is any worse for the female patients or is "attractiveness" oriented.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    edited September 2017
    *edited because addressed.
This discussion has been closed.