Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

Options
1…347348350352353…358

Replies

  • PAFC84
    PAFC84 Posts: 1,871 Member
    edited December 2017
    Options
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    CipherZero wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »

    Here's the thing, and the link will no doubt be posted soon... It's possible to fuel effective progressive overload with "junk food"... someone on MFP with an open diary did it... for 90+ days with photos and detailed logs.

    SO it's pretty well settled... FOOD is food.. calories are calories.

    Check what NFL, NBA, Olympic athletes use to fuel their training. Sure there is some junk food, but most of it is nutrient dense.


    You definitely shouldn't base what your diet and training should look like based on what genetic outliers do.


    Genetic outliers?

    How about hardest working athletes? You're weak.

    To be fair, there is also quite a lot of steroid use in the NFL too. It used to be the case that if you testing positive for steroids and it was a first offence, you only got a 2-4 week ban. Seconds offences could be 10 games. Compare that to sports like rugby or 100m runners where the consequences are far more severe. That suggests to me that its a rather big problem and they expect it.

  • mburgess458
    mburgess458 Posts: 480 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Sweet_Intensity wrote: »
    Pet peeve - people who believe that merely counting calories and not paying attention to nutrient levels is a healthy way to lose weight. Losing weight eating junk food may attain the immediate goal, but junk food doesn't supply sufficient balanced nutrition and it will likely cause problems later in life. Additives and artificial anything has to be filtered by the liver; this takes a toll on the liver, which, although it has an amazing ability to heal itself, will eventually wear out which can lead to fatty liver, fibrosis, cirrhosis and liver cancer.

    You may be misunderstanding what is being said or taking it out of context. I'll leave this here for you to explain some of it instead of writing a long post:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYeZVfPxwKM

    That was really good, thanks!
  • k8andchr1smom
    k8andchr1smom Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    clicketykeys wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    Speziface wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)

    For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.

    And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.

    I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.

    This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.

    I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.

    Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.

    That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.

    So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?

    Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.

    Oh I never watch baking shows.

    The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.

    I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.

    I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.

    I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate
    • Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
    • If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
    • Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
    • Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
    • That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
    • Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
    • To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
    • Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.

    Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.

    And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.

    All of this.

    And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).

    I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.

    I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.

    To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).

    When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.

    Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.

    I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.

    Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.

    And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.

    It's not really an extra dirty bowl. I like to semi mis en place, so would often pre chop and put some things in a bowl.

    Putting them on the scale is an extra step (I remember the weights and note them down, but that's like a memory exercise that I find enjoyable). It doesn't FEEL like any added burden to me at all. It's fun.

    Again, I accept that it does feel like an added burden or bothersome to you, even if I don't understand it. (I also don't care if you want to weigh or not -- I am not currently logging so I sometimes weigh, sometimes don't, don't write anything down.) What I find odd is someone who logs and measures in some other way insisting that using the scale makes it neurotic and burdensome. Or someone who doesn't track at all but uses a different strategy (which is me, currently) insisting that people who enjoy logging are doing it wrong.

    My husband, who does all the cooking, does his mis en place onto a paper plate on the scale.
  • snarlingcoyote
    snarlingcoyote Posts: 399 Member
    edited December 2017
    Options
    Nevermind. I realized I was quoting someone from June. Whoops,
  • k8andchr1smom
    k8andchr1smom Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    richardgavel wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Some games are not sports. They may require skill, and a bit of fitness but a sport? Worthy of the Olympics? Nah.

    Games IMO:
    • nascar or other race car or motor bike sports
    • golf
    • ping pong
    • bowling
    • curling (that was hard for a Canadian to admit)
    • baseball
    • horse riding or jumping
    • crickett

    Almost sport like:
    diving
    ski jumping

    While yoga is not a sport, it is an exercise that destroys me well.

    Sports don't necessitate fitness, they necessitate skill. In many sports, a level of fitness is required to reach the requisite level of skill, but not always. I think what's off is your definition of "sport".

    The traditional definition of sport are combat/warrior skills performed in a nonlethal/recreational format.

    that seems like an awfully archaic definition of "sport."

    Is ESPN willing to broadcast it? There's a modern definition of it. Only problem is that includes poker and video game playing too, those could be sports based on definitions on this thread. Chess?


    Also the Spelling Bee
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    Options
    k8andchr1smom wrote: »
    richardgavel wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    Some games are not sports. They may require skill, and a bit of fitness but a sport? Worthy of the Olympics? Nah.

    Games IMO:
    • nascar or other race car or motor bike sports
    • golf
    • ping pong
    • bowling
    • curling (that was hard for a Canadian to admit)
    • baseball
    • horse riding or jumping
    • crickett

    Almost sport like:
    diving
    ski jumping

    While yoga is not a sport, it is an exercise that destroys me well.

    Sports don't necessitate fitness, they necessitate skill. In many sports, a level of fitness is required to reach the requisite level of skill, but not always. I think what's off is your definition of "sport".

    The traditional definition of sport are combat/warrior skills performed in a nonlethal/recreational format.

    that seems like an awfully archaic definition of "sport."

    Is ESPN willing to broadcast it? There's a modern definition of it. Only problem is that includes poker and video game playing too, those could be sports based on definitions on this thread. Chess?


    Also the Spelling Bee

    and competitive eating
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    Options
    That I’ll happily swear off some foods or reduce consumption of them to less than 3-4 servings a year (like bread, pizza, ice cream, cake) if by doing so my portion size of other (most likely more nutritional anyway) foods can be reasonable (larger than tiny).

    Standard MFP advice of don’t eliminate any foods and control those portions left me hangry all day long.

    To each his own.
  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,467 Member
    Options
    That there is some good to apple cider vinegar. (Gall bladder problems).
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I'm curious about one thing, why is it ACV specifically? I'm partial to raspberry vinegar and hate the taste of apple cider vinegar. Could we make the former trendy please?

    Isn't it something about the "mother" or some other weirdness specific to ACV?
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    Options
    When I exceed my calories primarily by consuming too many liquid calories it doesn't seem to result in as much weight gain as excessive calories from solid foods. I guess this is more of an unpopular observation rather than an opinion.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,154 Member
    Options
    mph323 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I'm curious about one thing, why is it ACV specifically? I'm partial to raspberry vinegar and hate the taste of apple cider vinegar. Could we make the former trendy please?

    Isn't it something about the "mother" or some other weirdness specific to ACV?

    Yes, I think so (though the popularized mythology probably also depends on Bragg and other acolytes/profiteers talking it up more abstractly).

    In reality, I don't think "the mother" is inherently ACV specific: "Mother" is simply the culture that makes vinegar happen (just as you need culture to make yogurt yogurt, or sourdough sourdough).

    I'm a science fan-girl, big time, but also a bit experimental in my behavior, when I think there's a moderately high probability bet to be made involving a food I find tasty, and that's clearly been evolution tested for safety. ACV (with mother ;) ) is one.

    There's some interesting (but inconclusive and non-definitive) science growing around human gut microbiome diversity. We definitely don't know enough to be prescriptive. Nonetheless, I personally feel there's enough "interesting stuff" that it makes sense to make it a point to regularly eat pro/prebiotic foods that are delicious, time-tested, and nutritious.

    For me, that includes foods like kefir, yogurt, sauerkraut, miso, raw ACV, and the like. I see no down side (though some do need to avoid salt-cured fermented foods because of health issues).

    This might be unpopular. ;)
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I'm curious about one thing, why is it ACV specifically? I'm partial to raspberry vinegar and hate the taste of apple cider vinegar. Could we make the former trendy please?

    Isn't it something about the "mother" or some other weirdness specific to ACV?

    Yes, I think so (though the popularized mythology probably also depends on Bragg and other acolytes/profiteers talking it up more abstractly).

    In reality, I don't think "the mother" is inherently ACV specific: "Mother" is simply the culture that makes vinegar happen (just as you need culture to make yogurt yogurt, or sourdough sourdough).

    I'm a science fan-girl, big time, but also a bit experimental in my behavior, when I think there's a moderately high probability bet to be made involving a food I find tasty, and that's clearly been evolution tested for safety. ACV (with mother ;) ) is one.

    There's some interesting (but inconclusive and non-definitive) science growing around human gut microbiome diversity. We definitely don't know enough to be prescriptive. Nonetheless, I personally feel there's enough "interesting stuff" that it makes sense to make it a point to regularly eat pro/prebiotic foods that are delicious, time-tested, and nutritious.

    For me, that includes foods like kefir, yogurt, sauerkraut, miso, raw ACV, and the like. I see no down side (though some do need to avoid salt-cured fermented foods because of health issues).

    This might be unpopular. ;)

    Interesting about the "mother" - I didn't realize vinegar was made with a culture. I agree that as a fermented food ACV could potentially have some positive impact on gut microbiome diversity. I'm with AmusedMonkey, though, wouldn't any type of vinegar have the same effect? Why ACV in particular?
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited December 2017
    Options
    Vinegar in general (not specifically ACV) is good for those who are insulin resistant. It slows down the blood sugar spike some. I'm not against experimentation with every day substances, either. I just think most claims, even those that have a grain of truth, are overblown. I'm all for fermented foods, but I got turned off raw vinegar when a bottle we forgot about developed eels so I'll get my live culture elsewhere. With the amount of yogurt I eat this shouldn't be a problem. (And yes, "the mother" is the bacterial culture that turns alcohol into vinegar and is not unique to ACV).
  • Strawblackcat
    Strawblackcat Posts: 944 Member
    edited December 2017
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I'm curious about one thing, why is it ACV specifically? I'm partial to raspberry vinegar and hate the taste of apple cider vinegar. Could we make the former trendy please?

    It’s supposed to be because certain kinds of ACV (specifically, the raw, unfiltered, and unpasteurized ones with “gunk” on the bottom — like Bragg’s) still have the mother of the vinegar in the bottle, which has active enzymes. The vinegar itself also is suppose to help with digestion by supplementing stomach acid.

    It’s not wholly inaccurate. I can personally say that I find a small shot of watered-down ACV before meals really seems to help me digest food better, and I often tend to be prone to bloating and other IBS-type stuff. People just blow the benefits of ACV out of proportion, and so shouting “ACV!” has become a pppular kind of shorthand around here for calling out quackery and B.S.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,154 Member
    edited December 2017
    Options
    mph323 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I'm curious about one thing, why is it ACV specifically? I'm partial to raspberry vinegar and hate the taste of apple cider vinegar. Could we make the former trendy please?

    Isn't it something about the "mother" or some other weirdness specific to ACV?

    Yes, I think so (though the popularized mythology probably also depends on Bragg and other acolytes/profiteers talking it up more abstractly).

    In reality, I don't think "the mother" is inherently ACV specific: "Mother" is simply the culture that makes vinegar happen (just as you need culture to make yogurt yogurt, or sourdough sourdough).

    I'm a science fan-girl, big time, but also a bit experimental in my behavior, when I think there's a moderately high probability bet to be made involving a food I find tasty, and that's clearly been evolution tested for safety. ACV (with mother ;) ) is one.

    There's some interesting (but inconclusive and non-definitive) science growing around human gut microbiome diversity. We definitely don't know enough to be prescriptive. Nonetheless, I personally feel there's enough "interesting stuff" that it makes sense to make it a point to regularly eat pro/prebiotic foods that are delicious, time-tested, and nutritious.

    For me, that includes foods like kefir, yogurt, sauerkraut, miso, raw ACV, and the like. I see no down side (though some do need to avoid salt-cured fermented foods because of health issues).

    This might be unpopular. ;)

    Interesting about the "mother" - I didn't realize vinegar was made with a culture. I agree that as a fermented food ACV could potentially have some positive impact on gut microbiome diversity. I'm with AmusedMonkey, though, wouldn't any type of vinegar have the same effect? Why ACV in particular?

    ACV seems to be the only one that's widely available raw, unfiltered and unpasteurized. If other types of vinegar were available in that form, they'd have the same effect (or lack thereof ;) ) AFAIK.

    Edited: typo
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    I'm curious about one thing, why is it ACV specifically? I'm partial to raspberry vinegar and hate the taste of apple cider vinegar. Could we make the former trendy please?

    Isn't it something about the "mother" or some other weirdness specific to ACV?

    Yes, I think so (though the popularized mythology probably also depends on Bragg and other acolytes/profiteers talking it up more abstractly).

    In reality, I don't think "the mother" is inherently ACV specific: "Mother" is simply the culture that makes vinegar happen (just as you need culture to make yogurt yogurt, or sourdough sourdough).

    I'm a science fan-girl, big time, but also a bit experimental in my behavior, when I think there's a moderately high probability bet to be made involving a food I find tasty, and that's clearly been evolution tested for safety. ACV (with mother ;) ) is one.

    There's some interesting (but inconclusive and non-definitive) science growing around human gut microbiome diversity. We definitely don't know enough to be prescriptive. Nonetheless, I personally feel there's enough "interesting stuff" that it makes sense to make it a point to regularly eat pro/prebiotic foods that are delicious, time-tested, and nutritious.

    For me, that includes foods like kefir, yogurt, sauerkraut, miso, raw ACV, and the like. I see no down side (though some do need to avoid salt-cured fermented foods because of health issues).

    This might be unpopular. ;)

    Interesting about the "mother" - I didn't realize vinegar was made with a culture. I agree that as a fermented food ACV could potentially have some positive impact on gut microbiome diversity. I'm with AmusedMonkey, though, wouldn't any type of vinegar have the same effect? Why ACV in particular?

    ACV seems to be the only one that's widely available raw, unfiltered and unpasteurized. If other types of vinegar were available in that form, they'd have the same effect (or lack thereof ;) ) AFAIK.

    Edited: typo

    I think that's probably the explanation.

    I also give some possible credence to the idea of fermented foods having a positive effect on the gut microbiome and I include them in my diet (although I always have since there are many I like, so this is hardly a big deal). I'm just not sure why it's always ACV alone and not fermented foods in general (people are asking about drinking ACV, not adding sauerkraut to a meal daily, for example), and a positive effect on the gut biome over time doesn't account for the idea that you lose weight just from drinking it* or that it improves digestion (which is something I often think may be more perception than well-documented in any reliable way) or the like.** (I do think there's something about insulin spikes that might be relevant to T2D or IR folks.)

    More significantly, none of that would justify the focus on just ACV, because the gut biome is affected by so many things (including vegetables and fibrous foods, for example, is supposed to be positive, and if one is ignoring that kind of thing -- I know you are not -- but thinking ACV will be magic, I think it's a matter of ignoring the forest for the trees), and again that's not really about weight loss. With insulin spikes, clearly overall diet will matter more, such as choosing carb sources with fiber and combining carbs with protein and fat (as in consuming them in the context of a full meal).

    Long-winded way of saying I agree with "why not try something if there are no drawbacks and you enjoy it anyway" but I see that as quite different from insisting that consuming a drink of vinegar (especially if one dislikes it) has magical immediate effects or causes weight loss, which is what I keep seeing.

    * I'm actually puzzled by this somewhat, as I keep reading that one effect of the microbiome is how efficiently you digest your food and access the calories, but it would seem that being able to access calories and digest efficiently is a good thing, meaning your gut is working well, and not a bad thing. I wonder if it's that your gut microbiome is adapted to what you eat, so you will be better at digesting fibrous foods (for example) and accessing the micronutrients from them when you eat more and have the resultant gut biome needed to deal with those foods (and maybe that plays a role in cravings, but clearly it can be outweighed by other things). So the alternative would be that you perhaps end up with different species when consuming lots of high cal foods of certain types and over time end up being able to access the calories from those more efficiently (and digest them even more easily) than someone not used to eating those foods. So in theory when you first shift the diet to such foods or if you include them rarely maybe you'd get slightly fewer calories from them than someone who ate them a lot, but clearly that would not be something that lasted over time, but would be affected by diet -- whether or not one included ACV. So this idea that people get too many calories from food because there's something wrong with their gut microbiome has never made sense to me. (Not saying you are saying that, but it's something that comes up on MFP from time to time. Anyway, I do need to read more about it.)

    ** I do think there's evidence that it helps with a specific problem, namely reflux, but that would not be a reason that it would be helpful for people who don't suffer from reflux, of course. And that leads into something that puzzles me when people speak generically about issues with digestion -- there are so many, so what specifically are they thinking ACV helps with? I think a lot of this can be suggestion in that I know I've assumed that yogurt helps with digestion and would probably say I feel better in general when consuming yogurt, except if you actually asked me to explain how and how I know that, I don't think I could. Instead, when I happen to be feeling really good at times I've been consuming yogurt, my mind -- which already suspects a link and so is looking for one -- is likely to note that I had yogurt. At times when I don't feel so good and haven't my mind will take note of that. Not explaining it well, but I think it's similar to how when you get a new car all of a sudden you notice everyone has that same make and color car. (This also happened to me, anyway.)
  • hannamarie0098
    hannamarie0098 Posts: 85 Member
    Options
    CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
    I believe that most of these opinions are unpopular in certain circles of these forums.

    1. Gluten Sensitivity. It is possible to have a negative reaction to foods containing wheat without being celiac. It is possible that when I tried a gluten-free diet, on the advice of an actual M.D. after having many other diagnostic tests done that several persistent problematic issues resolved. It is possible that when I do eat wheat, that it is the reason that my symptoms return for several days. It is possible that I am on a gluten-free diet because it makes me feel better and not because it is a fad that people on pinterest have popularized.

    Wheat makes me ill also, but it’s not the gluten that’s a problem, it’s the fructans. I have to limit intake but can have some. The gluten free fad is so ubiquitous however that no one seems to understand that and is bitterly disappointed when I don’t want their gluten free offerings.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories