Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Options
Replies
-
WayTooHonest wrote: »
I've lost 90 pounds.
All since menopause.
My unpopular opinion? Blaming hypothyroidism or menopause and saying how "it's sooooo hard". It's not, it's just slower than you might expect. Everyone has unrealistic expectations of weight loss and instead of realizing that their expectations are the problem, hormonal issues are made out to be much more significant than they actually are.
(FTR, I also have Hashimoto's disease.)
Second unpopular opinion? You don't need to lift heavy to strength train. There are many different forms of resistance training and lifting heavy is just one of them.
My third unpopular opinion? I challenge the notion that the boards are "against" low carbers. They are not. Anyone who comes on making any extraordinary or outlandish claims about any way of eating gets challenged. Any person, no matter what macro mix they employ, who cites CI<CO as the method of weight loss never gets any flak.65 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.7 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Here's a good one: exercise is only for fitness, and anyone who doesn't agree is doing it wrong.
OK, I couldn't disagree more. But I "liked" because it is certainly an unpopular opinion.9 -
I'm against any position that encourages victim status - HAES, slow metabolism, FA...certainly not a popular opinion as the world has rejected any notion of personal responsibility and accountability and solely devoted to casting blame on something or someone else.
Really unpopular opinion, but also alcohol. No, you do not have a disease. No, you are not powerless over your problem. You are personally responsible for the CHOICES you make, so choosing to stop making bad ones.21 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Here's a good one: exercise is only for fitness, and anyone who doesn't agree is doing it wrong.
OK, I couldn't disagree more. But I "liked" because it is certainly an unpopular opinion.
I think I phrased it wrong. A while ago there was a thread for favorite fitness myths, that's what I had in mind when I wrote that. I see "exercise is for fitness, diet is for weight" a lot here, and always disagree; my unpopular opinion is that exercise is for whatever you want to get out of it. Calories, entertainment, to see if your new jacket breathes well enough when you walk up a hill, or even fitness.29 -
SeriousCat wrote: »I'm against any position that encourages victim status - HAES, slow metabolism, FA...certainly not a popular opinion as the world has rejected any notion of personal responsibility and accountability and solely devoted to casting blame on something or someone else.
Really unpopular opinion, but also alcohol. No, you do not have a disease. No, you are not powerless over your problem. You are personally responsible for the CHOICES you make, so choosing to stop making bad ones.
?? Do you mean alcoholism?8 -
here it is...
Losing weight is easy.
CICO is an equation that applies to everyone regardless of metabolism/menopause etc.
You don't need to exercise to lose weight
You can gain muscle in a deficit if certain things are in play
you can lose fat and not weight and gain muscle all at the same time ....recomp
supplements like preworkout BCCA's etc are bunk.
18 -
Also...
Food is food. No labels, no cares where it came from. If it tastes good, imma eat it guilt free.45 -
Eat less and move your *kitten* more.7
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.
I think there might be different understandings of the term at play here.
Of late, some play has been given on the boards to the idea of natural hunger signaling being some sort of standard to which we should all be held.
That's the type of "intuitive eating" that would require no thinking, because our bodies would provide the "I'm full, please stop" signal.
Learned intuitive eating as taught in other circles of listening to your body in a continuous cycle of questioning and feedback is something else which would, of course, require thought.
I think the first scenario I mentioned is bunk. I think the idea that it's a standard to which everyone should be held is laughable.
I think for some people, especially those for whom any sort of conscientious portioning or accounting becomes obsessive, can really benefit from the second kind of intuitive eating. IIRC, someone on Reddit's LoseIt community was using that approach, and while she realized that she might never get to be really really thin, she knew that it was the healthiest psychological path for her.9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Eat less and move your *kitten* more.
This made me giggle harder than it should. Move my kitten...bow chicka wow wow
17 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet.
Menopause or not, you still will lose weight if you eat 1500 calories, and burn 2000 calories.
You REALLY have no idea what women's hormones do to our bodies, do you love? Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts.
From the Mayo Clinic:
"The hormonal changes of menopause make you more likely to gain weight around your abdomen than around your hips and thighs."
But apparently both my GP and my OB/GYN don't know what they are talking about, either. It's not as simple as CICO once you cross 40. It's so much more complicated now that our hormones are shutting down. That's science, friend.
Fun Fact: Men have the same problem, they are now starting to call it MANopause. Just wait.
That quote is about the differences in where fat is stored on the body. That is clearly related to hormones. But you seem to be arguing that a menopausal body can store energy even when in a deficit. What is the source for that?
That quote is one part of a whole statement. No, what I said is that menopause and the loss of hormones slows the whole process down. Never said it couldn't be done (congrats to the lady above who lost 90#). In fact, I said, and I quote "Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts." I have a bad habit of going to reputable medical sites and peer reviewed journal articles, but I am not a physician so what do I know.5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Here's a good one: exercise is only for fitness, and anyone who doesn't agree is doing it wrong.
OK, I couldn't disagree more. But I "liked" because it is certainly an unpopular opinion.
I think I phrased it wrong. A while ago there was a thread for favorite fitness myths, that's what I had in mind when I wrote that. I see "exercise is for fitness, diet is for weight" a lot here, and always disagree; my unpopular opinion is that exercise is for whatever you want to get out of it. Calories, entertainment, to see if your new jacket breathes well enough when you walk up a hill, or even fitness.
Thumbs up, man. Gotcha.
1 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet.
Menopause or not, you still will lose weight if you eat 1500 calories, and burn 2000 calories.
You REALLY have no idea what women's hormones do to our bodies, do you love? Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts.
From the Mayo Clinic:
"The hormonal changes of menopause make you more likely to gain weight around your abdomen than around your hips and thighs."
But apparently both my GP and my OB/GYN don't know what they are talking about, either. It's not as simple as CICO once you cross 40. It's so much more complicated now that our hormones are shutting down. That's science, friend.
Fun Fact: Men have the same problem, they are now starting to call it MANopause. Just wait.
That quote is about the differences in where fat is stored on the body. That is clearly related to hormones. But you seem to be arguing that a menopausal body can store energy even when in a deficit. What is the source for that?
That quote is one part of a whole statement. No, what I said is that menopause and the loss of hormones slows the whole process down. Never said it couldn't be done (congrats to the lady above who lost 90#). In fact, I said, and I quote "Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts." I have a bad habit of going to reputable medical sites and peer reviewed journal articles, but I am not a physician so what do I know.
But you wrote that in response to this: "but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics."
A deficit being harder for some people to achieve due to a slower metabolism doesn't mean that weight loss isn't created by a calorie deficit. At the end of the day, if you burn 2,000 calories and put in 1,500, you will lose weight. I don't know of a single reputable medical site or peer reviewed journal article that argues otherwise. Some people might find it easier to burn those 2,000 calories -- but that wasn't what you seemed to be arguing.18 -
Tried30UserNames wrote: »I don't think it's all about CICO.
I think there is good food and bad food, and I think what you eat matters.
I agree with your part about the good foods and bad foods, but CICO is real, and backed by science, but I believe that people don't realize that eating bad foods and processed foods leads to your body not functioning properly, therefore lowering calories out unknowlingly, making it seem as though CI doesn't equal CO.
Citation? Diet adherence can be an issues with too many foods that are highly palatable and not satiating (I am not a fan of the terminology "processed" as that is too arbitrary), but I've seen no conclusive evidence that there is a material difference in CO.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet.
Menopause or not, you still will lose weight if you eat 1500 calories, and burn 2000 calories.
You REALLY have no idea what women's hormones do to our bodies, do you love? Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts.
From the Mayo Clinic:
"The hormonal changes of menopause make you more likely to gain weight around your abdomen than around your hips and thighs."
But apparently both my GP and my OB/GYN don't know what they are talking about, either. It's not as simple as CICO once you cross 40. It's so much more complicated now that our hormones are shutting down. That's science, friend.
Fun Fact: Men have the same problem, they are now starting to call it MANopause. Just wait.
That quote is about the differences in where fat is stored on the body. That is clearly related to hormones. But you seem to be arguing that a menopausal body can store energy even when in a deficit. What is the source for that?
That quote is one part of a whole statement. No, what I said is that menopause and the loss of hormones slows the whole process down. Never said it couldn't be done (congrats to the lady above who lost 90#). In fact, I said, and I quote "Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts." I have a bad habit of going to reputable medical sites and peer reviewed journal articles, but I am not a physician so what do I know.
But you wrote that in response to this: "but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics."
A deficit being harder for some people to achieve due to a slower metabolism doesn't mean that weight loss isn't created by a calorie deficit. At the end of the day, if you burn 2,000 calories and put in 1,500, you will lose weight. I don't know of a single reputable medical site or peer reviewed journal article that argues otherwise. Some people might find it easier to burn those 2,000 calories -- but that wasn't what you seemed to be arguing.
Actually, what I originally wrote in response to "but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics." was "HAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet." Apparently some people are taking that WAY TOO FREAKING SERIOUS. My apologies for having a sense of humor.
12 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet.
Menopause or not, you still will lose weight if you eat 1500 calories, and burn 2000 calories.
You REALLY have no idea what women's hormones do to our bodies, do you love? Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts.
From the Mayo Clinic:
"The hormonal changes of menopause make you more likely to gain weight around your abdomen than around your hips and thighs."
But apparently both my GP and my OB/GYN don't know what they are talking about, either. It's not as simple as CICO once you cross 40. It's so much more complicated now that our hormones are shutting down. That's science, friend.
Fun Fact: Men have the same problem, they are now starting to call it MANopause. Just wait.
That quote is about the differences in where fat is stored on the body. That is clearly related to hormones. But you seem to be arguing that a menopausal body can store energy even when in a deficit. What is the source for that?
That quote is one part of a whole statement. No, what I said is that menopause and the loss of hormones slows the whole process down. Never said it couldn't be done (congrats to the lady above who lost 90#). In fact, I said, and I quote "Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts." I have a bad habit of going to reputable medical sites and peer reviewed journal articles, but I am not a physician so what do I know.
But you wrote that in response to this: "but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics."
A deficit being harder for some people to achieve due to a slower metabolism doesn't mean that weight loss isn't created by a calorie deficit. At the end of the day, if you burn 2,000 calories and put in 1,500, you will lose weight. I don't know of a single reputable medical site or peer reviewed journal article that argues otherwise. Some people might find it easier to burn those 2,000 calories -- but that wasn't what you seemed to be arguing.
Actually, what I originally wrote in response to "but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics." was "HAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet." Apparently some people are taking that WAY TOO FREAKING SERIOUS. My apologies for having a sense of humor.
I apologize for taking your words as if they were meant seriously.21 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.
I think there might be different understandings of the term at play here.
Of late, some play has been given on the boards to the idea of natural hunger signaling being some sort of standard to which we should all be held.
That's the type of "intuitive eating" that would require no thinking, because our bodies would provide the "I'm full, please stop" signal.
Learned intuitive eating as taught in other circles of listening to your body in a continuous cycle of questioning and feedback is something else which would, of course, require thought.
I think the first scenario I mentioned is bunk. I think the idea that it's a standard to which everyone should be held is laughable.
I think for some people, especially those for whom any sort of conscientious portioning or accounting becomes obsessive, can really benefit from the second kind of intuitive eating. IIRC, someone on Reddit's LoseIt community was using that approach, and while she realized that she might never get to be really really thin, she knew that it was the healthiest psychological path for her.
I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded statement, and think it true of every weight loss method. Not the bunk part, just the 'standard to which everyone should be held' part.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet.
Menopause or not, you still will lose weight if you eat 1500 calories, and burn 2000 calories.
You REALLY have no idea what women's hormones do to our bodies, do you love? Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts.
From the Mayo Clinic:
"The hormonal changes of menopause make you more likely to gain weight around your abdomen than around your hips and thighs."
But apparently both my GP and my OB/GYN don't know what they are talking about, either. It's not as simple as CICO once you cross 40. It's so much more complicated now that our hormones are shutting down. That's science, friend.
Fun Fact: Men have the same problem, they are now starting to call it MANopause. Just wait.
That quote is about the differences in where fat is stored on the body. That is clearly related to hormones. But you seem to be arguing that a menopausal body can store energy even when in a deficit. What is the source for that?
That quote is one part of a whole statement. No, what I said is that menopause and the loss of hormones slows the whole process down. Never said it couldn't be done (congrats to the lady above who lost 90#). In fact, I said, and I quote "Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts." I have a bad habit of going to reputable medical sites and peer reviewed journal articles, but I am not a physician so what do I know.
But you wrote that in response to this: "but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics."
A deficit being harder for some people to achieve due to a slower metabolism doesn't mean that weight loss isn't created by a calorie deficit. At the end of the day, if you burn 2,000 calories and put in 1,500, you will lose weight. I don't know of a single reputable medical site or peer reviewed journal article that argues otherwise. Some people might find it easier to burn those 2,000 calories -- but that wasn't what you seemed to be arguing.
Actually, what I originally wrote in response to "but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics." was "HAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet." Apparently some people are taking that WAY TOO FREAKING SERIOUS. My apologies for having a sense of humor.
I apologize for taking your words as if they were meant seriously.
Thank you for saying that
My sense of humor gets me in WAY TOO MUCH TROUBLE. There needs to be a font for clarity. 7 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet.
Menopause or not, you still will lose weight if you eat 1500 calories, and burn 2000 calories.
You REALLY have no idea what women's hormones do to our bodies, do you love? Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts.
From the Mayo Clinic:
"The hormonal changes of menopause make you more likely to gain weight around your abdomen than around your hips and thighs."
But apparently both my GP and my OB/GYN don't know what they are talking about, either. It's not as simple as CICO once you cross 40. It's so much more complicated now that our hormones are shutting down. That's science, friend.
Fun Fact: Men have the same problem, they are now starting to call it MANopause. Just wait.
That quote is about the differences in where fat is stored on the body. That is clearly related to hormones. But you seem to be arguing that a menopausal body can store energy even when in a deficit. What is the source for that?
That quote is one part of a whole statement. No, what I said is that menopause and the loss of hormones slows the whole process down. Never said it couldn't be done (congrats to the lady above who lost 90#). In fact, I said, and I quote "Decreased estrogen, slower metabolism, affects our ability to metabolize sugars, bone density declines, and SO MUCH MORE...all medical facts." I have a bad habit of going to reputable medical sites and peer reviewed journal articles, but I am not a physician so what do I know.
Decreased estrogen is a given. But slower metabolism and loss of bone density are not. They can be combatted with proper diet and exercise. This is why resistance training is more important than ever during and after menopause.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions