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
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »
This reminds me of about 12 years ago (I think?) when my wife and I were car shopping - for my wife.
We walk around the lot, see a couple of cars we might be interested in. A salesman comes along and starts doing his thing, particularly talking to me. I tell him explicitly that we're looking for my wife. For whatever reason, he keeps telling me about certain features, pretty much ignoring my wife. I tell him that I don't really care too much, and that he should be talking to my wife, since any car we purchase will be for my wife. Oh, OK. Talks to her for less than a minute, then starts up with me again. My wife and I look at each other, and are like, "we've seen all we need to see." D-bag thinks he's made a sale - "oh, you want to take it for a test drive, let me..." "Nah, we're not interested in anything here at all."
When I was in my 20s I went car shopping and took my father with me. When we met our salesman, we made it clear that the car was for me. And yet the salesman kept talking directly to my dad, brushing off my questions, and barely even looked at me. My dad even flat out said several times: "he is the one buying the car, why don't you ask him?" But the salesman had such tunnel vision that he continued to ignore me. So he lost a commission that day. When it comes to sales, I think that a lot of them are trained to just lock on to the person who they assume is the decision maker and ignore everyone else, which is bad business.
This reminds me of when my OH and I were at the hospital with his mostly deaf mother who was being admitted. The male nurse kept asking me questions even though it was his mother, and he was the one answering the questions. I think that nurse was just used to women being more involved with health care, whether or not they are the closest relation.4 -
SingRunTing wrote: »
This is exactly the scene I was thinking of upthread but didn't know how to link a YouTube video.2 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
It's much more likely that incorporating those "treats" into a deficit will build the habits over time to prevent them from exceeding their calories on maintenance.
Also, I don't know why it's unreasonable to monitor intake for a lifetime.
I agree, I think people are far better off incorporating treats, but to say "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" I don't believe is good because I don't think that's what people should be doing. I think they should be eating a nutrient dense diet and allowing themselves treats when they need them.
Also there is a small group of people that have their health and diet at a high enough priority in their lives to even make healthier food choices and quantities to begin with, so I believe it is very unreasonable to expect for people to be counting their calories for a lifetime, most cannot even consistently do it to lose and maintain a substantial amount of weight even when their health is in jeopardy.
who is this person advocating a nutrient deficient diet and saying eat cookies all day but stay under your calories and you will be fine? I just want someone to tell me who this person is that is making this claim..????
No one claimed that there was bud, neither me or tapwaters had said that..... You keep coming back to this as if we were implying that, what I (as I don't want to speak for him) am saying is that, by just saying that they can eat whatever they want to eat under a certain calorie amount is reckless because there will be people who read that and actually just go eat poor quality foods. I am not saying that anyone here (or anywhere) is advocating for people to eat junk all day, but to me, when you say "eat what anything as long as it's under your calories" may cause people to have trouble with their weight in the future when they do not meticulously count their calories if they have not learned to properly feed their body and listen to their body.
So, while you acknowledge that's not what anyone is advocating for, eating nothing but junk all day, but as @lemurcat12 pointed out above, your assumption is that there are people who will interprete a simple statement like "eat what you want within your calories" (which by the way is almost always preceded by the question - can I eat a cookie and still lose weight?) as a suggestion to just go and eat nothing but poor quality foods. Like @lemurcat12 said, I think it is insulting to presume that this is what people want to do, or that they don't even have the basic knowledge of nutrition that is taught in preschool, that it is important to eat healthy foods.
When you consistently meet with people that actually eat with no regard to the effect it's having on their bodies that are coming in to change and learn because they have absolutely no understanding about nutrition at all, it's not really insulting but the unfortunate truth....
Again though, you are trying to say that when people come here asking for advice they are told to eat what they want with a pat on the head and off you pop. That's patently not the case. You tell, I assume clients, that calories are the primary factor of weight management but nutrition is what matters for health.
That is literally what happens in threads here. So why are you so hell bent on asserting otherwise and that people here are reckless because, well, I don't even know what the because is. There isn't one because it's not happening.
But please, show me where someone confused about nutrition is told to eat whatever they like start and end of story.
I was in a thread yesterday where the OP wasn't sure what macros meant and they were also struggling with hunger. A bunch of people chimed in to teach her what those things are, how adjusting the proportions can help find a sweet spot, meal timings etc. Two or three pages of great advice.
So what you suggest is really an insult to the veterans here. You're implying that you somehow offer superior advice when really it's just language semantics.
I was implying that I offer superior advice?
I was saying that I have people that come in that genuinely have no clue about nutrition at all. I've had people who see a little article on Facebook that says that chocolate has all these health benefits and rationalize going and getting a snickers bar because they want to be "healthy".
In no way was I saying anything about myself offering superior advice.
And those people eat nothing but Snickers bars and other "junk" food?1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I believe some people may use a Facebook click-bait article about antioxidants in dark chocolate to justify an extra snickers bar, but I. do. not. believe for a single moment that any one of those people would have been unaware that you're supposed to 'eat fruit and veg 'cos vitamins'.RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
It's much more likely that incorporating those "treats" into a deficit will build the habits over time to prevent them from exceeding their calories on maintenance.
Also, I don't know why it's unreasonable to monitor intake for a lifetime.
I agree, I think people are far better off incorporating treats, but to say "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" I don't believe is good because I don't think that's what people should be doing. I think they should be eating a nutrient dense diet and allowing themselves treats when they need them.
Also there is a small group of people that have their health and diet at a high enough priority in their lives to even make healthier food choices and quantities to begin with, so I believe it is very unreasonable to expect for people to be counting their calories for a lifetime, most cannot even consistently do it to lose and maintain a substantial amount of weight even when their health is in jeopardy.
who is this person advocating a nutrient deficient diet and saying eat cookies all day but stay under your calories and you will be fine? I just want someone to tell me who this person is that is making this claim..????
No one claimed that there was bud, neither me or tapwaters had said that..... You keep coming back to this as if we were implying that, what I (as I don't want to speak for him) am saying is that, by just saying that they can eat whatever they want to eat under a certain calorie amount is reckless because there will be people who read that and actually just go eat poor quality foods. I am not saying that anyone here (or anywhere) is advocating for people to eat junk all day, but to me, when you say "eat what anything as long as it's under your calories" may cause people to have trouble with their weight in the future when they do not meticulously count their calories if they have not learned to properly feed their body and listen to their body.
So, while you acknowledge that's not what anyone is advocating for, eating nothing but junk all day, but as @lemurcat12 pointed out above, your assumption is that there are people who will interprete a simple statement like "eat what you want within your calories" (which by the way is almost always preceded by the question - can I eat a cookie and still lose weight?) as a suggestion to just go and eat nothing but poor quality foods. Like @lemurcat12 said, I think it is insulting to presume that this is what people want to do, or that they don't even have the basic knowledge of nutrition that is taught in preschool, that it is important to eat healthy foods.
When you consistently meet with people that actually eat with no regard to the effect it's having on their bodies that are coming in to change and learn because they have absolutely no understanding about nutrition at all, it's not really insulting but the unfortunate truth....
Again though, you are trying to say that when people come here asking for advice they are told to eat what they want with a pat on the head and off you pop. That's patently not the case. You tell, I assume clients, that calories are the primary factor of weight management but nutrition is what matters for health.
That is literally what happens in threads here. So why are you so hell bent on asserting otherwise and that people here are reckless because, well, I don't even know what the because is. There isn't one because it's not happening.
But please, show me where someone confused about nutrition is told to eat whatever they like start and end of story.
I was in a thread yesterday where the OP wasn't sure what macros meant and they were also struggling with hunger. A bunch of people chimed in to teach her what those things are, how adjusting the proportions can help find a sweet spot, meal timings etc. Two or three pages of great advice.
So what you suggest is really an insult to the veterans here. You're implying that you somehow offer superior advice when really it's just language semantics.
I was implying that I offer superior advice?
I was saying that I have people that come in that genuinely have no clue about nutrition at all. I've had people who see a little article on Facebook that says that chocolate has all these health benefits and rationalize going and getting a snickers bar because they want to be "healthy".
In no way was I saying anything about myself offering superior advice.
Exactly. People can rationalize a lot of things, but I find it impossible to believe that they've never been told that some foods have more nutritional benefit than others. To suggest otherwise is insulting to this person's "clients" or whatever he calls them.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.
I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.
It's much more likely that incorporating those "treats" into a deficit will build the habits over time to prevent them from exceeding their calories on maintenance.
Also, I don't know why it's unreasonable to monitor intake for a lifetime.
I agree, I think people are far better off incorporating treats, but to say "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" I don't believe is good because I don't think that's what people should be doing. I think they should be eating a nutrient dense diet and allowing themselves treats when they need them.
Also there is a small group of people that have their health and diet at a high enough priority in their lives to even make healthier food choices and quantities to begin with, so I believe it is very unreasonable to expect for people to be counting their calories for a lifetime, most cannot even consistently do it to lose and maintain a substantial amount of weight even when their health is in jeopardy.
who is this person advocating a nutrient deficient diet and saying eat cookies all day but stay under your calories and you will be fine? I just want someone to tell me who this person is that is making this claim..????
I think sometimes it comes from this assumption that anyone with excess weight is eating 100% non-nutrient dense foods. But even people with room to make improvements in their diets probably aren't eating purely non-nutrient dense foods. They're probably eating a combination of different foods, adding up to excessive calories.
Yeah, and this drives me crazy, because when I got fat I was (1) eating the same nutrient dense diet I had when I was thin, but had abruptly stopped being active (depression/anxiety issues were related) and not adjusted my diet, and then (2) after a while when I'd gained weight so figured it didn't matter started eating stuff between meals for emotional reasons (not always nutrient poor stuff, more related to what was available).
When I decided to improve my diet, I focused on eating just at meals and getting active again and paying attention to my portions. How I'd been eating when active before -- largely nutrient dense meals (lots of vegetables -- I don't understand it when people say they dislike vegetables) made from whole foods, but with 1-2 meals out at nice restaurants (or interesting restaurants) per week, because I'm kind of a foodie and have to for work sometimes -- and some tasty dessert foods because I like that stuff -- IS how I wanted to eat, the issue was I had to figure out how to do it within my calories. It wasn't too hard once I stopped mindless/emotional eating (which was never how I wanted to eat) and got real with pointless wasting of calories (I could use less added fat than I had been, be more careful with portions of things I don't care much about or not include them, not treat every time at a restaurant as an excuse to overeat or ignore amounts, measure out my ice cream or dessert or save it for a special occasion).
For me, this is eating as I like within my calories. What others do -- what they like -- will be different, but the idea that it means eating a poor, non nutrient diet is false and insulting, IMO, and says more about the person making the assumption.
I see nothing wrong with counting as a permanent thing, but I don't do it -- I can eat what I want within my calories now that I am basically at maintenance by watching portions and the rest and exercising sense in food choices.
People who say that if you tell people to eat what they want within their calories you are being irresponsible since they won't think about satiety and health and how they feel or learn anything are assuming that other people are idiots and ignoring that you learn a lot by logging even if you don't innately or already know what is satiating for you.
Okay, rant over! ;-)
My food story is somewhat similar to yours, though I have never been active in my life until I started to lose weight.
I probably eat as much now, calorie-wise, to lose weight, as I did 90 pounds ago to maintain a much higher weight being sedentary. I have, however, significantly changed my macro distribution for health reasons and found that being active changed what I needed to feel satiated in terms of macros as well.
I also scratch my head at the assumption that people don't know they're supposed to eat well. It was just so ingrained in us when we were younger that vegetables and fruit and lean protein were "healthy" and that good nutrition was important. I automatically assume that most people understand this.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I also scratch my head at the assumption that people don't know they're supposed to eat well. It was just so ingrained in us when we were younger that vegetables and fruit and lean protein were "healthy" and that good nutrition was important. I automatically assume that most people understand this.
Yes. This may or may not be an unpopular opinion, but I am firmly convinced that people who choose NOT to eat vegetables or NOT to eat generally healthfully (unless they are doing some weird fad thing like a juice cleanse based on bad information) are making a choice because for whatever reason they don't want to. Me telling them they should makes no difference -- they know they should. This is also why I usually don't bother with threads saying "I hate vegetables" unless the person is actually open to suggestions about how they might enjoy them. And it's why I think the idea that people started eating lots of low fat sugary junk food and no veg and lots of fast food (the supposed SAD, although of course a huge number of Americans don't eat like that at all) because they earnestly thought they were supposed to based on gov't guidelines: the guidelines have always said eat more veg and fruit and not excessive sugar, even when they were lower fat, and obviously no one thinks a diet that's mostly Whoppers and fries and sugary soda=ideal.
On the whole, I think people know what a generally decent diet is, even if they fight on the margins about the trend of the hour: low carb vs. paleo vs. WFPB, etc. If they eat nutrient poor diets, that's not ignorance, for the vast majority, it's a choice. Us saying "you should eat healthfully" changes nothing, even though I do anyway if the question is asked, since I cannot seem to stop myself. "Eat what you want within your calories" is invariably combined with "of course, for health and satiety and how you feel what you eat matters, get in your nutrients."
I find it so puzzling that some people like to claim that people are routinely told that nutrients don't matter or that the second part of that advice is not given, as that's just not accurate to any thread I've been in.6 -
I'd actually argue there's an over-emphasis on eating clean and all veg and lean meat etc. That's an insurmountable and miserable sounding life for a lot of people. You see it all the time when people talk about dieting and all the salads they have to eat or memes about eating bacon or being skinny.
So actually, being told you don't have to live on steamed fish and broccoli for the rest of your days is MORE helpful than being told to eat your veg.17 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I'd actually argue there's an over-emphasis on eating clean and all veg and lean meat etc. That's an insurmountable and miserable sounding life for a lot of people. You see it all the time when people talk about dieting and all the salads they have to eat or memes about eating bacon or being skinny.
So actually, being told you don't have to live on steamed fish and broccoli for the rest of your days is MORE helpful than being told to eat your veg.
This is a great point.
It's like how a lot of people think they have to exercise and hate it, so give up on weight loss because they aren't willing to endure the torture of exercise (in their minds). You can try to convince them that there are forms of exercise they would like, that really, walking counts, etc., but it's good to also explain that they don't have to exercise, if they really don't want to. (And yet I do think most people who stick with it end up being more active, whether they call it exercise or not, since they realize it helps.) So saying "you don't have to exercise" is encouraging, it doesn't mean you are ADVISING people not to exercise.
Similarly, many people think a "healthy diet" (especially when dieting) is all broccoli and skinless, boneless chicken breast. That's why so many posts with "this is my diet I will eat every day" and so many people who cannot figure out how to get to 1000. I'd say that understanding this is a messed up view of what a healthy diet involves would be a good thing, but again it's often easier to say you don't have to do any of that -- eat what you like within your calories. If you are open to it, watch your protein and add in more veg and fruits and eating fewer sweets can make a diet more satiating, but you don't have to give up foods you really love.
There's a thread today with a poster frustrated about all the contradictory and confusing advise (is fat bad or good, are carbs bad or good, etc.) and OF COURSE some poster jumped in with a lot of blather about how the right thing to do is Fung's program and HIIT and this and that -- typical make dieting harder than it needs to be and encourage people to think that if they don't figure out the mysterious rules and follow them perfectly they cannot lose.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I'd actually argue there's an over-emphasis on eating clean and all veg and lean meat etc. That's an insurmountable and miserable sounding life for a lot of people. You see it all the time when people talk about dieting and all the salads they have to eat or memes about eating bacon or being skinny.
So actually, being told you don't have to live on steamed fish and broccoli for the rest of your days is MORE helpful than being told to eat your veg.
This is a great point.
It's like how a lot of people think they have to exercise and hate it, so give up on weight loss because they aren't willing to endure the torture of exercise (in their minds). You can try to convince them that there are forms of exercise they would like, that really, walking counts, etc., but it's good to also explain that they don't have to exercise, if they really don't want to. (And yet I do think most people who stick with it end up being more active, whether they call it exercise or not, since they realize it helps.) So saying "you don't have to exercise" is encouraging, it doesn't mean you are ADVISING people not to exercise.
Similarly, many people think a "healthy diet" (especially when dieting) is all broccoli and skinless, boneless chicken breast. That's why so many posts with "this is my diet I will eat every day" and so many people who cannot figure out how to get to 1000. I'd say that understanding this is a messed up view of what a healthy diet involves would be a good thing, but again it's often easier to say you don't have to do any of that -- eat what you like within your calories. If you are open to it, watch your protein and add in more veg and fruits and eating fewer sweets can make a diet more satiating, but you don't have to give up foods you really love.
There's a thread today with a poster frustrated about all the contradictory and confusing advise (is fat bad or good, are carbs bad or good, etc.) and OF COURSE some poster jumped in with a lot of blather about how the right thing to do is Fung's program and HIIT and this and that -- typical make dieting harder than it needs to be and encourage people to think that if they don't figure out the mysterious rules and follow them perfectly they cannot lose.
And all of this goes back around to why people say that it's okay to eat what you like within your calories.
1. Because we assume people know how to eat healthy.
2. Because most people generally assume that diet = grilled chicken + steamed broccoli for life and despair
I know this was true for me. It was liberating to find that it really was all about calories and that just as I can wisely budget my money to include the occasional indulgence, I can do so with my calorie budget.
I am as wise with my calorie budget as I am with my financial budget, and I think that experience if not common sense teaches most people to be this way. Most people realize that 4-5 donuts isn't going to make for a very filling day's worth of food, and really, the idea that some people seem to have that anyone would choose to do such a thing is absurd on the face of it.9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I'd actually argue there's an over-emphasis on eating clean and all veg and lean meat etc. That's an insurmountable and miserable sounding life for a lot of people. You see it all the time when people talk about dieting and all the salads they have to eat or memes about eating bacon or being skinny.
So actually, being told you don't have to live on steamed fish and broccoli for the rest of your days is MORE helpful than being told to eat your veg.
I don't know how unpopular it actually is, but I tend to be very quiet about encouraging patients on chemo to eat whatever the hell makes them feel good. Yes, getting the right nutrition is important, but priority #1 is being able to make it through the chemo. If that healthy lentil soup turns your stomach and you want a Twinkie, eat the damn Twinkie. Eat things (and, by extension, DO things) that make you look forward to getting better.19 -
Counting calories isn't sustainable and can lead to ED22
-
cmriverside wrote: »This whole argument ties into my belief that there are two kinds of people in the world. Victims and Just-Get-On-With-It types.
eh, i'm a qa analyst by profession, so i see two types of people as well: those who identify things so that they can be fixed, and those who think 'doesn't happen on my machine' proves something doesn't exist.17 -
clicketykeys wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I'd actually argue there's an over-emphasis on eating clean and all veg and lean meat etc. That's an insurmountable and miserable sounding life for a lot of people. You see it all the time when people talk about dieting and all the salads they have to eat or memes about eating bacon or being skinny.
So actually, being told you don't have to live on steamed fish and broccoli for the rest of your days is MORE helpful than being told to eat your veg.
I don't know how unpopular it actually is, but I tend to be very quiet about encouraging patients on chemo to eat whatever the hell makes them feel good. Yes, getting the right nutrition is important, but priority #1 is being able to make it through the chemo. If that healthy lentil soup turns your stomach and you want a Twinkie, eat the damn Twinkie. Eat things (and, by extension, DO things) that make you look forward to getting better.
Lol this was the point of the pregnant women earlier upthread... As the MFP turns.2 -
thickspo91 wrote: »Counting calories isn't sustainable and can lead to ED
I don't see how it's any different than counting your money.8 -
thickspo91 wrote: »Counting calories isn't sustainable and can lead to ED
Counting calories is a tool, how you use it is up to you. Counting calories does not lead to eating disorder, having an eating disorder leads to the misuse of various perfectly normal tools.20 -
canadianlbs wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »This whole argument ties into my belief that there are two kinds of people in the world. Victims and Just-Get-On-With-It types.
eh, i'm a qa analyst by profession, so i see two types of people as well: those who identify things so that they can be fixed, and those who think 'doesn't happen on my machine' proves something doesn't exist.
Talk about taking things out of context.0 -
canadianlbs wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »This whole argument ties into my belief that there are two kinds of people in the world. Victims and Just-Get-On-With-It types.
eh, i'm a qa analyst by profession, so i see two types of people as well: those who identify things so that they can be fixed, and those who think 'doesn't happen on my machine' proves something doesn't exist.
You're ignoring a type of person.
The "it annoys me so it's not working as intended"3 -
thickspo91 wrote: »Counting calories isn't sustainable and can lead to ED
1) How do you define "sustainable"? I'm currently at a 1,492-day logging streak (actually logging my diet, not just accessing this site), I (and countless others on MFP with long streaks) would suggest that this qualifies as a sustainable habit.
2) Calorie counting is simply accumulating data in order to allow for objective decision making on nutrition, instead of winging it. If this causes an ED, then the process has been unhealthily distorted as a result of preexisting eating-oriented emotional/psychological conditions with the person counting calories, and not a byproduct of the process.7 -
thickspo91 wrote: »Counting calories isn't sustainable and can lead to ED
Lol no ...0 -
thickspo91 wrote: »Counting calories isn't sustainable and can lead to ED
Just take the blue pill if you have problems with ED.12 -
stanmann571 wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »This whole argument ties into my belief that there are two kinds of people in the world. Victims and Just-Get-On-With-It types.
eh, i'm a qa analyst by profession, so i see two types of people as well: those who identify things so that they can be fixed, and those who think 'doesn't happen on my machine' proves something doesn't exist.
You're ignoring a type of person.
The "it annoys me so it's not working as intended"
Or those who didn't expect that someone would intentionally design it to be annoying.4 -
thickspo91 wrote: »Counting calories isn't sustainable and can lead to ED
It is sustainable but yes for some is could lead to an eating disorder....but I believe that if it does than they would have formed that ED anyway.3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'd love to see how cavalier the "life ain't fair" attitudes displayed in this thread would be to this whole workplace ish if we had a matriarchal society that deferred to women and the gender norms were reversed.
Well, you see, the problem isn't the things the mansplainers are doing, the problem is that we are calling the things they are doing "mansplaining".
The problem is you're pretending those things are being done because you're a woman.
They happen to men just as often.
I have a friend who has transitioned from woman to man. He says that there is considerable difference in the way people treat him now. He is immediately afforded more respect in many different aspects of his life. Perhaps your lack of understanding stems from lack of experience.
hmm I find this interesting.
I am ex military and I was the 8th woman in my trade in the military in the country (same country as the parts technician) and I actually didn't run into much mansplaining...
I don't now either...
As for your friend yes he probably is...but then there are parts where he is afforded less.
For example as a woman I am a soft place for my child to run to and hug when they are hurt etc not the dad...just saying...
I sometimes think because some people "anticipate" things they see it where it might not be....I have often said you look hard enough and you will find an issue....
I'm not talking about mansplaining (a term I actually haven't used, until this post, and never in real life), the point was more regarding this assertion that men are treated no different from women. Which I disagree with. I think that both men and women are guilty of it, which is why I don't necessarily agree with the term mansplaining. I do find some of this conversation challenging to read through though because it has been very dismissive (I'm not referring to your post).
I agree wholeheartedly with the statement in bold.
Absolutely, some men are dismissive of women's input/ideas/advice/etc. but I've absolutely experienced it from women toward myself as a man, as well (I've also been disregarded due to being single before I was married and also because I don't have children, both in cases where my status had nothing to do with the situation).
The term "mansplaining" insinuates two things:
1) Only men do it and 2) all men do it because they are men.
These insinuations are just as sexist as the affronts being offered up in this thread.
ETA, I've also witnessed women being dismissive of other women so it's safe to say that the biases/expectations set upon us by our culture/society are not limited to interactions between opposing sexes (it's not a man thing to expect the mechanic to be a man).11 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »stormcrow2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Not literally :P
I guess I don't understand how someone who understands how much energy their body needs and consistently consumes that amount of energy is still a fatty on the inside. I became fat because I disregarded how much energy my body needed. Adjusting that changed the situation. But you're arguing that if I don't meet certain nutritional standards (as determined by you), I might still be considered fat?
sounds like he is making the mythical connection that anyone who says it is OK to eat within your calories and you will still lose weight, is advocating for a diet of 100% oreos, or something...
I want this mythical 100% Oreo diet.
Here's a menu!
14 Oreos (one packet) for breakfast
14 Oreos (one packet) for lunch
14 Oreos (one packet) for dinner
Total: 2226 calories
Nutritional information
Fat: 992.4g
of which saturates: 46.2g
Carbohydrate: 319.2g
of which sugars: 172.2g
Fibre: 12.6g
Protein 21g
Salt: 4.2g
but its low sodium.
8 -
stormcrow2 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »stormcrow2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Not literally :P
I guess I don't understand how someone who understands how much energy their body needs and consistently consumes that amount of energy is still a fatty on the inside. I became fat because I disregarded how much energy my body needed. Adjusting that changed the situation. But you're arguing that if I don't meet certain nutritional standards (as determined by you), I might still be considered fat?
sounds like he is making the mythical connection that anyone who says it is OK to eat within your calories and you will still lose weight, is advocating for a diet of 100% oreos, or something...
I want this mythical 100% Oreo diet.
Here's a menu!
14 Oreos (one packet) for breakfast
14 Oreos (one packet) for lunch
14 Oreos (one packet) for dinner
Total: 2226 calories
Nutritional information
Fat: 992.4g
of which saturates: 46.2g
Carbohydrate: 319.2g
of which sugars: 172.2g
Fibre: 12.6g
Protein 21g
Salt: 4.2g
but its low sodium.
Fixed it
9 -
I finally have a place to say this
Not all calories are equal. Calories from a hot fudge brownie sundae is going to affect your body differently than equivalent amount of calories from broccoli and a nice piece of steak. one is going to satiate and make you energized the other will leave you hungry and lethargic. The whole world knows this (even if they don't practice it) but you get death threats if you express this on MFP. So that is my "unpopular health/fitness opinion" wow that feels good. LOL 26 -
I finally have a place to say thisNot all calories are equal. Calories from a hot fudge brownie sundae is going to affect your body differently than equivalent amount of calories from broccoli and a nice piece of steak. one is going to satiate and make you energized the other will leave you hungry and lethargic. The whole world knows this (even if they don't practice it) but you get death threats if you express this on MFP. So that is my "unpopular health/fitness opinion" wow that feels good. LOL
You're confusing calories with nutrition.25 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Not literally :P
Spiritually fatty on the inside because yummy food is sinful. Perfectly healthy in body but poor in spirit for indulging in the carnal pleasures of delicious eating, fouling your chakras and spiritual bowels by abstaining from a bland diet of cauliflower pizzas.15 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »stormcrow2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Not literally :P
I guess I don't understand how someone who understands how much energy their body needs and consistently consumes that amount of energy is still a fatty on the inside. I became fat because I disregarded how much energy my body needed. Adjusting that changed the situation. But you're arguing that if I don't meet certain nutritional standards (as determined by you), I might still be considered fat?
sounds like he is making the mythical connection that anyone who says it is OK to eat within your calories and you will still lose weight, is advocating for a diet of 100% oreos, or something...
I want this mythical 100% Oreo diet.
Here's a menu!
14 Oreos (one packet) for breakfast
14 Oreos (one packet) for lunch
14 Oreos (one packet) for dinner
Total: 2226 calories
Nutritional information
Fat: 992.4g
of which saturates: 46.2g
Carbohydrate: 319.2g
of which sugars: 172.2g
Fibre: 12.6g
Protein 21g
Salt: 4.2g
Haha just have to ask, not to say this was ever recommended or ever happened, so both sides are equally an educated guess; but do you think this would result in equal FAT loss if compared to a balanced and more nutrient dense diet with less sugar, more protein and less fat, but with the exact same calorie intake? How about weight loss?
Fat loss, specifically? No, because a diet higher in protein would (assuming a progressive lifting routine) prevent muscle loss, resulting in a greater proportion of weight loss to be from fat.
Weight loss in general? Yes. Weight loss/gain/maintenance is determined solely by energy balance (science).
More/less sugar and more/less fat have no bearing on whether there would be a difference in weight OR fat loss from one diet to another.1 -
I finally have a place to say thisNot all calories are equal. Calories from a hot fudge brownie sundae is going to affect your body differently than equivalent amount of calories from broccoli and a nice piece of steak. one is going to satiate and make you energized the other will leave you hungry and lethargic. The whole world knows this (even if they don't practice it) but you get death threats if you express this on MFP. So that is my "unpopular health/fitness opinion" wow that feels good. LOL
@Rivers2k Did you truly get death threats on this board for expressing that? That's something I'd take very seriously. Deets?
4
https://youtu.be/eyC_NKEz62A
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