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
-
Motorsheen wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »Idancefit2015 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Humans are not meant to travel in space and we still do...
And that is that same how...???
If we were not meant to do it than we should not, right?
I never said that people are wrong for eating it. I really don't care who eats what but this is an opinion board and I was adding mine... that humans aren't made for digesting gluten and dairy. If you do eat it that's your choice and that's fine. I eat it sometimes as well. But gluten is an inflammatory food so if you are sick of having aches and pains that don't seem to have an explanation, you might try cutting out gluten. And if you have issues with acne, bloating, and other hormonal issues, you might try cutting out dairy.
I am not a scientist, just a girl with an opinion... that's what this page is for right? OPINIONS? didn't realize that mine was so personally offensive -_-
The idea that we were made, or created, to do or not do anything in particular and that we should avoid doing that which we were not made to do is inherently a religious argument.
If you scroll up you'll see I already addressed this. Not religious. Just science. Our digestive systems just don't process the food well. And I feel like you haven't read anything I said considering that in my last post I said that there is no wrong in people eating it. I don't have a moral issue with gluten and Dairy lol I was just explaining how it can negatively affect the body and that the simple solution is cutting it out of your diet.
My digestive system is just fine with dairy...I don't think I'm some kind of exception here...I know one person in real life who is lactose intolerant, and I know a lot of people. I know a lot more people who are allergic to nuts (including my own kid) than I do people who are dairy intolerant.
We've been consuming dairy and grains for tens of thousands of years...
Did you ever wonder who was the first guy to look at a cow and think: " Boy, I sure am thirsty ! "
I imagine it went something like: Two guys sitting in a field. One says... "I dare you to suck on that".
I imagine that some poor guy lost a bet.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Regarding women and pregnancy weight gain, I think it's fair to say this. There are a lot of women out there who gain a lot more than what they really need to. Regardless of whatever amount of weight that is, there are a lot of women who gain excessively.
So do non pregnant men. What's your point?
Exactly what I was wondering in response to that statement.
Perhaps the point being made was not that non pregnant people also gain too much, but that there are women who use the pregnancy as an excuse to gain too much. Yes, every women should be discussing what is healthy with their OB/GYN who is familiar with her specific situation. But if we are being real honest there are women who disregard what is healthy and just go nuts with how much they choose to eat while pregnant with the thought that its ok because they are pregnant. That does not negate the cravings, or the hormones that go crazy. I have had 3 babies, but I have more then one friend who chose to ignore the recommendations of their doctors, and gained way more weight then was recommended and then acted all shocked when they did not lose the 50-60lbs after giving birth. Yes they lost the first 20-30 pretty fast because that was the excess from Baby and excess fluids ect. But the other 20-30 was excess fat they gained because they ate way more then their bodies needed during pregnancy even when you account for the extra calories and nutrients needed to grow a baby. Then they are unhappy and blame having kids on their weight gain. No not every woman does this, but some do. But lets face it everyone of us who has been overweight at some point could find an excuse for our choices, whether you have had babies or not.
My unpopular opinion is that it's no one else's fault, its not some outside force, its our own choices that cause our weight gain. Yes there are medical conditions and medications, and environmental factors that influence it, but at the end of the day, you choose to make changes to account for those or you don't. You choose what you eat, and/or how much of if you eat. You choose to educate yourself about nutrition or you don't. I was obese because I ate too much food, for what my body needed. It really was that simple of an answer.13 -
Hmm... my unpopular opinions about health and fitness...
- That I think it's NONSENSE that the best way to improve your body involves only restricting your calories, often to some crazy low level generated by a MFP computer algorithm that has never met you.
- That I believe that weight is not the be all and end all. I believe that many people set unrealistic goal weights, and can develop a terrible obsession with getting as light as possible. I teetered on the edge of this myself. I looked scrawny and unattractive, and positively ill when I was close to my goal weight. Thankfully I stopped chasing the scales and look way better now, approximately 12kg heavier, strong and lean. My clothes are mostly the same size they were at my skinniest. Lifting FTW.
- That I think that although some parts of these forums are fab, they are out of control on the "add a letter", "the person above you..." and those kinds of threads. I may be a luddite but I don't get it. And it makes it hard to find the good threads!
Go to the web version of the website, click the cog and click Unfollow on chit chat and fun and games sub forums
3 -
It really gets me going when people think it is somehow "easier" for me, than it is for them, to be strong, healthy, fit and enjoy a balanced lifestyle.
I can assure you that I work very hard and very thoughtfully to maintain a certain weight and physique, and have done so for a lifetime. True, I do enjoy working out, but this is just a matter of finding activities that are a good fit and having a positive outlook.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Regarding women and pregnancy weight gain, I think it's fair to say this. There are a lot of women out there who gain a lot more than what they really need to. Regardless of whatever amount of weight that is, there are a lot of women who gain excessively.
So do non pregnant men. What's your point?
Exactly what I was wondering in response to that statement.
Perhaps the point being made was not that non pregnant people also gain too much, but that there are women who use the pregnancy as an excuse to gain too much.
People use lots of things as an excuse for weight gain, so again I'm not sure what JasonForecaster's point was in singling out -- indeed, concern trolling, or so it seemed to me -- about pregnant women doing this. I found it rather humorous (in a way) that he did so. After all, no one asserted that pregnant women never gain too much, there's no particular reason to see pregnant women gaining weight with a pregnancy as the driving force of the obesity problem, which is much broader, and it seems odd that Jason, who is a normal or underweight single guy, last I recall, would be particularly concerned about how all these pregnant women are packing on the pounds. Well, not odd, exactly, but something.My unpopular opinion is that it's no one else's fault, its not some outside force, its our own choices that cause our weight gain. Yes there are medical conditions and medications, and environmental factors that influence it, but at the end of the day, you choose to make changes to account for those or you don't. You choose what you eat, and/or how much of if you eat. You choose to educate yourself about nutrition or you don't. I was obese because I ate too much food, for what my body needed. It really was that simple of an answer.
I don't see how this is an unpopular opinion. (I also basically agree with it, although I'd probably say responsibility, not fault.)4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Regarding women and pregnancy weight gain, I think it's fair to say this. There are a lot of women out there who gain a lot more than what they really need to. Regardless of whatever amount of weight that is, there are a lot of women who gain excessively.
So do non pregnant men. What's your point?
Exactly what I was wondering in response to that statement.
Perhaps the point being made was not that non pregnant people also gain too much, but that there are women who use the pregnancy as an excuse to gain too much.
People use lots of things as an excuse for weight gain, so again I'm not sure what JasonForecaster's point was in singling out -- indeed, concern trolling, or so it seemed to me -- about pregnant women doing this. I found it rather humorous (in a way) that he did so. After all, no one asserted that pregnant women never gain too much, there's no particular reason to see pregnant women gaining weight with a pregnancy as the driving force of the obesity problem, which is much broader, and it seems odd that Jason, who is a normal or underweight single guy, last I recall, would be particularly concerned about how all this pregnant women are packing on the pounds. Well, not odd, exactly, but something.My unpopular opinion is that it's no one else's fault, its not some outside force, its our own choices that cause our weight gain. Yes there are medical conditions and medications, and environmental factors that influence it, but at the end of the day, you choose to make changes to account for those or you don't. You choose what you eat, and/or how much of if you eat. You choose to educate yourself about nutrition or you don't. I was obese because I ate too much food, for what my body needed. It really was that simple of an answer.
I don't see how this is an unpopular opinion. (I also basically agree with it, although I'd probably say responsibility, not fault.)
Exactly this!0 -
It really gets me going when people think it is somehow "easier" for me, than it is for them, to be strong, healthy, fit and enjoy a balanced lifestyle.
Yeah, it really irritates me when people decide that it's easier for people who are currently in shape or losing weight than them, that the only reason the person who is doing it is must be that that person has it easy or doesn't understand the struggle. I'm sure the issues facing everyone are different, but you don't know how hard someone else has it, so assuming it's easier for them and they can't get it is IMO wrong and presumptuous and a self-defeatist attitude.1 -
I don't like "diets" that eliminate particular food groups (or macromolecules). After hitting menopause three years ago the weight is starting to creep back on and I'm really struggling to get it back off. My doctor actually told me "this is just what happens as you age". Seriously? Others keep telling me to eliminate carbs and/or eat just protein. I just want to keep the heart attacks away, which took down most of my family long before they ever got close to my age. Lifestyle changes are the best idea!4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Regarding women and pregnancy weight gain, I think it's fair to say this. There are a lot of women out there who gain a lot more than what they really need to. Regardless of whatever amount of weight that is, there are a lot of women who gain excessively.
So do non pregnant men. What's your point?
Exactly what I was wondering in response to that statement.
Perhaps the point being made was not that non pregnant people also gain too much, but that there are women who use the pregnancy as an excuse to gain too much. Yes, every women should be discussing what is healthy with their OB/GYN who is familiar with her specific situation. But if we are being real honest there are women who disregard what is healthy and just go nuts with how much they choose to eat while pregnant with the thought that its ok because they are pregnant. That does not negate the cravings, or the hormones that go crazy. I have had 3 babies, but I have more then one friend who chose to ignore the recommendations of their doctors, and gained way more weight then was recommended and then acted all shocked when they did not lose the 50-60lbs after giving birth. Yes they lost the first 20-30 pretty fast because that was the excess from Baby and excess fluids ect. But the other 20-30 was excess fat they gained because they ate way more then their bodies needed during pregnancy even when you account for the extra calories and nutrients needed to grow a baby. Then they are unhappy and blame having kids on their weight gain. No not every woman does this, but some do. But lets face it everyone of us who has been overweight at some point could find an excuse for our choices, whether you have had babies or not.
My unpopular opinion is that it's no one else's fault, its not some outside force, its our own choices that cause our weight gain. Yes there are medical conditions and medications, and environmental factors that influence it, but at the end of the day, you choose to make changes to account for those or you don't. You choose what you eat, and/or how much of if you eat. You choose to educate yourself about nutrition or you don't. I was obese because I ate too much food, for what my body needed. It really was that simple of an answer.
1 -
loftus4827 wrote: »Kettle bells are retarded. There I said it
But fun!1 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »
@MotorsheenMotorsheen wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Motorsheen wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »I think pregnant women should do whatever it takes to have a healthy baby and maintain their sanity. Making a human ain't a walk in the park.
Hahahahaha. ... you used the words "women" and "sanity" together in the same sentence.
That is pure comedy gold right there, it damn sure is.
Right. Because every woman is the same. :noway:
Oh wait... what am I doing here? I again should be in the kitchen. Sorry!
Lighten up, baby; I was clowning.
wow did you just baby a complete stranger on the internet...*hangs head*
Lol seems to be the modus operandi of the thread.
Why aren't you in the kitchen??? :laugh:
I am just forever surprised that men...*coughs* feel it's okay to call complete strangers baby...maybe they should start calling each other "baby" and see how it goes.
It works just fine for Austin Powers.11 -
dancefit2015 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »Idancefit2015 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Humans are not meant to travel in space and we still do...
And that is that same how...???
If we were not meant to do it than we should not, right?
I never said that people are wrong for eating it. I really don't care who eats what but this is an opinion board and I was adding mine... that humans aren't made for digesting gluten and dairy. If you do eat it that's your choice and that's fine. I eat it sometimes as well. But gluten is an inflammatory food so if you are sick of having aches and pains that don't seem to have an explanation, you might try cutting out gluten. And if you have issues with acne, bloating, and other hormonal issues, you might try cutting out dairy.
I am not a scientist, just a girl with an opinion... that's what this page is for right? OPINIONS? didn't realize that mine was so personally offensive -_-
The idea that we were made, or created, to do or not do anything in particular and that we should avoid doing that which we were not made to do is inherently a religious argument.
If you scroll up you'll see I already addressed this. Not religious. Just science. Our digestive systems just don't process the food well. And I feel like you haven't read anything I said considering that in my last post I said that there is no wrong in people eating it. I don't have a moral issue with gluten and Dairy lol I was just explaining how it can negatively affect the body and that the simple solution is cutting it out of your diet.
Our digestive systems process it just fine. Yours in particular may not.7 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Hmm... my unpopular opinions about health and fitness...
- That I think it's NONSENSE that the best way to improve your body involves only restricting your calories, often to some crazy low level generated by a MFP computer algorithm that has never met you.
- That I believe that weight is not the be all and end all. I believe that many people set unrealistic goal weights, and can develop a terrible obsession with getting as light as possible. I teetered on the edge of this myself. I looked scrawny and unattractive, and positively ill when I was close to my goal weight. Thankfully I stopped chasing the scales and look way better now, approximately 12kg heavier, strong and lean. My clothes are mostly the same size they were at my skinniest. Lifting FTW.
- That I think that although some parts of these forums are fab, they are out of control on the "add a letter", "the person above you..." and those kinds of threads. I may be a luddite but I don't get it. And it makes it hard to find the good threads!
You can block certain forums so you won't see them. Chit-Chat, for example...
Not anymore unfortunately. The forum software got changed at some point.0 -
kenyonhaff wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »Idancefit2015 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Humans are not meant to travel in space and we still do...
And that is that same how...???
If we were not meant to do it than we should not, right?
I never said that people are wrong for eating it. I really don't care who eats what but this is an opinion board and I was adding mine... that humans aren't made for digesting gluten and dairy. If you do eat it that's your choice and that's fine. I eat it sometimes as well. But gluten is an inflammatory food so if you are sick of having aches and pains that don't seem to have an explanation, you might try cutting out gluten. And if you have issues with acne, bloating, and other hormonal issues, you might try cutting out dairy.
I am not a scientist, just a girl with an opinion... that's what this page is for right? OPINIONS? didn't realize that mine was so personally offensive -_-
The idea that we were made, or created, to do or not do anything in particular and that we should avoid doing that which we were not made to do is inherently a religious argument.
If you scroll up you'll see I already addressed this. Not religious. Just science. Our digestive systems just don't process the food well. And I feel like you haven't read anything I said considering that in my last post I said that there is no wrong in people eating it. I don't have a moral issue with gluten and Dairy lol I was just explaining how it can negatively affect the body and that the simple solution is cutting it out of your diet.
It's pretty much just Europeans and groups like Mongols that developed a mutation that allows for dairy consumption after early childhood. And even within populations of these groups a certain percentage cannot process dairy well. In most of the world milk is not used in an unprocessed state, if at all. Drinking milk is an evolutionary adaptation, just like high-altitude dwellers in the Andes have shorter limbs.
How one perceives this reality is a matter of perspective. One could state that milk is a very nutritious thing for people who can digest it well. Or one can state most people can't digest it well or just don't like it are better off with other foods to get similar nutrition. I'd say both are right.
One of the major changes that was triggered by tracking my diet on MFP was the elimination of orange juice and milk (not overall dairy) from my diet (generally). I realized that I was getting more vitamin C, D, and calcium in my diet than necessary, and since I don’t particularly enjoy these drinks, I got rid of them and found better uses for those calories. Eliminating OJ also cut my sugar substantially.
The reason I had OJ and milk every morning was because my parents served it to me for breakfast every day as a child and I just maintained the habit without questioning it. That is really the root use of most habits that we just do robotically3 -
any diet or program that is pushed on me. I dont push what has worked on me on anyone, why do others feel the need/desire to tell me how I could best be losing weight.2
-
any diet or program that is pushed on me. I dont push what has worked on me on anyone, why do others feel the need/desire to tell me how I could best be losing weight.
I understand that some folks want to share with others what has worked for them. Others definitely have an agenda, typically tied to money or an ethical stance.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Hmm... my unpopular opinions about health and fitness...
- That I think it's NONSENSE that the best way to improve your body involves only restricting your calories, often to some crazy low level generated by a MFP computer algorithm that has never met you.
- That I believe that weight is not the be all and end all. I believe that many people set unrealistic goal weights, and can develop a terrible obsession with getting as light as possible. I teetered on the edge of this myself. I looked scrawny and unattractive, and positively ill when I was close to my goal weight. Thankfully I stopped chasing the scales and look way better now, approximately 12kg heavier, strong and lean. My clothes are mostly the same size they were at my skinniest. Lifting FTW.
- That I think that although some parts of these forums are fab, they are out of control on the "add a letter", "the person above you..." and those kinds of threads. I may be a luddite but I don't get it. And it makes it hard to find the good threads!
You can block certain forums so you won't see them. Chit-Chat, for example...
Not anymore unfortunately. The forum software got changed at some point.
My unfollowed forums are still unfollowed and I can still currently elect to unfollow other forums (on Safari on MacBook but Im pretty sure I can still do it on my Windows desktop machine also).
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.3 -
StealthHealth wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Hmm... my unpopular opinions about health and fitness...
- That I think it's NONSENSE that the best way to improve your body involves only restricting your calories, often to some crazy low level generated by a MFP computer algorithm that has never met you.
- That I believe that weight is not the be all and end all. I believe that many people set unrealistic goal weights, and can develop a terrible obsession with getting as light as possible. I teetered on the edge of this myself. I looked scrawny and unattractive, and positively ill when I was close to my goal weight. Thankfully I stopped chasing the scales and look way better now, approximately 12kg heavier, strong and lean. My clothes are mostly the same size they were at my skinniest. Lifting FTW.
- That I think that although some parts of these forums are fab, they are out of control on the "add a letter", "the person above you..." and those kinds of threads. I may be a luddite but I don't get it. And it makes it hard to find the good threads!
You can block certain forums so you won't see them. Chit-Chat, for example...
Not anymore unfortunately. The forum software got changed at some point.
My unfollowed forums are still unfollowed and I can still currently elect to unfollow other forums (on Safari on MacBook but Im pretty sure I can still do it on my Windows desktop machine also).
You can unfollow them but they don't disappear from sight anymore.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
3 -
The use of the term "meant" leads to the question "meant by whom?" Especially since we are talking about things humans obviously CAN biologically do (here, consume dairy).
I've linked this before, since it's interesting (IMO): http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes
(Answer: largely dairy.)3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.2 -
Motorsheen wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »Idancefit2015 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Humans are not meant to travel in space and we still do...
And that is that same how...???
If we were not meant to do it than we should not, right?
I never said that people are wrong for eating it. I really don't care who eats what but this is an opinion board and I was adding mine... that humans aren't made for digesting gluten and dairy. If you do eat it that's your choice and that's fine. I eat it sometimes as well. But gluten is an inflammatory food so if you are sick of having aches and pains that don't seem to have an explanation, you might try cutting out gluten. And if you have issues with acne, bloating, and other hormonal issues, you might try cutting out dairy.
I am not a scientist, just a girl with an opinion... that's what this page is for right? OPINIONS? didn't realize that mine was so personally offensive -_-
The idea that we were made, or created, to do or not do anything in particular and that we should avoid doing that which we were not made to do is inherently a religious argument.
If you scroll up you'll see I already addressed this. Not religious. Just science. Our digestive systems just don't process the food well. And I feel like you haven't read anything I said considering that in my last post I said that there is no wrong in people eating it. I don't have a moral issue with gluten and Dairy lol I was just explaining how it can negatively affect the body and that the simple solution is cutting it out of your diet.
My digestive system is just fine with dairy...I don't think I'm some kind of exception here...I know one person in real life who is lactose intolerant, and I know a lot of people. I know a lot more people who are allergic to nuts (including my own kid) than I do people who are dairy intolerant.
We've been consuming dairy and grains for tens of thousands of years...
Did you ever wonder who was the first guy to look at a cow and think: " Boy, I sure am thirsty ! "
I bet it was a goat rather than a cow...
I think it's also kind of interesting that even though goat milk contains lactose, people with dairy sensitivities often can have goat products...weird.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
Well, let's be honest.... most animals aren't worthy of skittles6 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Motorsheen wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »Idancefit2015 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Humans are not meant to travel in space and we still do...
And that is that same how...???
If we were not meant to do it than we should not, right?
I never said that people are wrong for eating it. I really don't care who eats what but this is an opinion board and I was adding mine... that humans aren't made for digesting gluten and dairy. If you do eat it that's your choice and that's fine. I eat it sometimes as well. But gluten is an inflammatory food so if you are sick of having aches and pains that don't seem to have an explanation, you might try cutting out gluten. And if you have issues with acne, bloating, and other hormonal issues, you might try cutting out dairy.
I am not a scientist, just a girl with an opinion... that's what this page is for right? OPINIONS? didn't realize that mine was so personally offensive -_-
The idea that we were made, or created, to do or not do anything in particular and that we should avoid doing that which we were not made to do is inherently a religious argument.
If you scroll up you'll see I already addressed this. Not religious. Just science. Our digestive systems just don't process the food well. And I feel like you haven't read anything I said considering that in my last post I said that there is no wrong in people eating it. I don't have a moral issue with gluten and Dairy lol I was just explaining how it can negatively affect the body and that the simple solution is cutting it out of your diet.
My digestive system is just fine with dairy...I don't think I'm some kind of exception here...I know one person in real life who is lactose intolerant, and I know a lot of people. I know a lot more people who are allergic to nuts (including my own kid) than I do people who are dairy intolerant.
We've been consuming dairy and grains for tens of thousands of years...
Did you ever wonder who was the first guy to look at a cow and think: " Boy, I sure am thirsty ! "
I bet it was a goat rather than a cow...
I think it's also kind of interesting that even though goat milk contains lactose, people with dairy sensitivities often can have goat products...weird.
I think of dairy sensitivity as more like an allergy. So that would mean differences in the proteins usually.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The use of the term "meant" leads to the question "meant by whom?" Especially since we are talking about things humans obviously CAN biologically do (here, consume dairy).
I've linked this before, since it's interesting (IMO): http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes
(Answer: largely dairy.)
To me it could just as easily lead to "meant by what?"
Evolution could answer that question.
I think it depends on your worldview, and though I generally do agree with what you're saying. I'm just picking nits for the fun of it because I think this whole thread jumped the shark with the mansplaining pregnancy fat shaming.
Is this the part where I call you baby to try to make things right now?5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The use of the term "meant" leads to the question "meant by whom?" Especially since we are talking about things humans obviously CAN biologically do (here, consume dairy).
I've linked this before, since it's interesting (IMO): http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes
(Answer: largely dairy.)
To me it could just as easily lead to "meant by what?"
Evolution could answer that question.
I think it depends on your worldview, and though I generally do agree with what you're saying. I'm just picking nits for the fun of it because I think this whole thread jumped the shark with the mansplaining pregnancy fat shaming.
Is this the part where I call you baby to try to make things right now?
I prefer "babe." ;-)
I'm cool with the nitpicking, but I usually think when people use "meant" they are implicitly assuming some sort of purposeful or directed creation, which is not the normal idea of evolution as I understand it.
My bigger issue, of course, is why wouldn't I be "meant" to eat something my ancestors have for ages and that I can digest quite easily and get nutrients from. (And you weren't saying we weren't, of course, but quite the opposite. That humans are adaptable omnivores and so by nature seem to be "meant" (meaning "adapted") to eat a ridiculous number of things we never ate until recently, many of which we invented, like bananas in their current form, or corn in same, is something I would not argue with!)1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 424 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