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
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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
You are confusing calories with food.
The calories in the sundae and the calories in the steak and broccoli would be exactly the same (assuming proportionate amounts of food to provide an equal number of calories) in that the calories from each would provide the same amount of energy (calories are nothing but a measurement of energy) to fuel the body.
Thus, either food choice would have the exact same impact on weight loss/gain/maintenance as they would result in an identical energy balance.
The difference between a sundae and a steak lies not in the calories but in the nutritional profile. A sundae will not have as much fiber or micronutrients as the broccoli and not as much protein as the steak. This has nothing to do with calories and nothing to do with weight loss.
If the calorie count between two diets is equal, the weight loss from both diets will be equal (assuming activity levels remain equal as well).
Saying "all calories are equal" does not mean that all foods are equal or that all foods have similar nutritional profiles or that all foods will leave you equally satiated. It means that 2,000 calories from candy and 2,000 calories from vegetables will have equal impacts on body weight. That is all.
ETA: This reply is not a death threat against you. Simply an explanation for why your statement is incorrect.
I was thinking, when @Rivers2k first posted, was that the sundae would actually fuel my heavy lifting better than the steak. Carbs for energy!
And I was thinking that the sundae would leave me feeling full longer than the steak. Meat and veggies alone don't leave me feeling full for very long (important to note since most of the "not all calories are equal" people tend to forget that "not all people's experiences with satiety are equal").
That is very true, not all people work the same. Carbs give me to much of a rush in to short of a time leaving me feeling depleted. Be careful lumping people because I never once said everyone has the same experience. I could say the same about the CICO crowd and they are very vocal about it.
Also just like not all calories are the same not all Carbs are the same (simple vs complex). I don't see athletes carbo loading with hotfudge they tend to use complex carbs.
But at the end of the day is my unpopular opinion nobody else has to like it.
Re: The bolded.
Nope, no lumping happening there.11 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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 are confusing calories with food.
The calories in the sundae and the calories in the steak and broccoli would be exactly the same (assuming proportionate amounts of food to provide an equal number of calories) in that the calories from each would provide the same amount of energy (calories are nothing but a measurement of energy) to fuel the body.
Thus, either food choice would have the exact same impact on weight loss/gain/maintenance as they would result in an identical energy balance.
The difference between a sundae and a steak lies not in the calories but in the nutritional profile. A sundae will not have as much fiber or micronutrients as the broccoli and not as much protein as the steak. This has nothing to do with calories and nothing to do with weight loss.
If the calorie count between two diets is equal, the weight loss from both diets will be equal (assuming activity levels remain equal as well).
Saying "all calories are equal" does not mean that all foods are equal or that all foods have similar nutritional profiles or that all foods will leave you equally satiated. It means that 2,000 calories from candy and 2,000 calories from vegetables will have equal impacts on body weight. That is all.
ETA: This reply is not a death threat against you. Simply an explanation for why your statement is incorrect.
I was thinking, when @Rivers2k first posted, was that the sundae would actually fuel my heavy lifting better than the steak. Carbs for energy!
And I was thinking that the sundae would leave me feeling full longer than the steak. Meat and veggies alone don't leave me feeling full for very long (important to note since most of the "not all calories are equal" people tend to forget that "not all people's experiences with satiety are equal").
That is very true, not all people work the same. Carbs give me to much of a rush in to short of a time leaving me feeling depleted. Be careful lumping people because I never once said everyone has the same experience. I could say the same about the CICO crowd and they are very vocal about it.
Also just like not all calories are the same not all Carbs are the same (simple vs complex). I don't see athletes carbo loading with hotfudge they tend to use complex carbs.
But at the end of the day is my unpopular opinion nobody else has to like it.
Re: The bolded.
Nope, no lumping happening there.
2 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Oooh, but Haribo Gummy Peaches! Those are soooo good.
I re-rebut:
Bourbon Gummy Bears
OMG I love these!!!1 -
. . .0
-
The_Enginerd wrote: »Nachos are also acceptable.
I want them NOW and dinner is three hours away. The cruelty of these boards.
3 -
Bah screw it we are never going to agree about this other stuff so whatever. I want to know where one purchases gummy bears with bourbon included.
Step 1: Buy Gummy Bears (The brand I have is Sugarfina Inc.)
Step 2: Buy 22ga hypodermic syringe
Step 3: Buy Bourbon
Step 4: Load syringe with Bourbon
Step 5: With bevel down and at a minor angle insert the needle into the body of the bear with greatest lateral aspect to ensure the body can support the bolus.
Step 6: Withdraw syringe.
Step 7: Repeat steps 1-6 and eat.
Or you could just soak them for 24 hours
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bah screw it we are never going to agree about this other stuff so whatever. I want to know where one purchases gummy bears with bourbon included.
Step 1: Buy Gummy Bears (The brand I have is Sugarfina Inc.)
Step 2: Buy 22ga hypodermic syringe
Step 3: Buy Bourbon
Step 4: Load syringe with Bourbon
Step 5: With bevel down and at a minor angle insert the needle into the body of the bear with greatest lateral aspect to ensure the body can support the bolus.
Step 6: Withdraw syringe.
Step 7: Repeat steps 1-6 and eat.
Or you could just soak them for 24 hours
Doesn't that make them sticky?0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bah screw it we are never going to agree about this other stuff so whatever. I want to know where one purchases gummy bears with bourbon included.
Step 1: Buy Gummy Bears (The brand I have is Sugarfina Inc.)
Step 2: Buy 22ga hypodermic syringe
Step 3: Buy Bourbon
Step 4: Load syringe with Bourbon
Step 5: With bevel down and at a minor angle insert the needle into the body of the bear with greatest lateral aspect to ensure the body can support the bolus.
Step 6: Withdraw syringe.
Step 7: Repeat steps 1-6 and eat.
Or you could just soak them for 24 hours
Doesn't that make them sticky?
There's a thing here (UK) where you throw all kinds of sweets/candy into bottles of vodka to make randomly flavoured vodkas.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bah screw it we are never going to agree about this other stuff so whatever. I want to know where one purchases gummy bears with bourbon included.
Step 1: Buy Gummy Bears (The brand I have is Sugarfina Inc.)
Step 2: Buy 22ga hypodermic syringe
Step 3: Buy Bourbon
Step 4: Load syringe with Bourbon
Step 5: With bevel down and at a minor angle insert the needle into the body of the bear with greatest lateral aspect to ensure the body can support the bolus.
Step 6: Withdraw syringe.
Step 7: Repeat steps 1-6 and eat.
Or you could just soak them for 24 hours
Doesn't that make them sticky?
Yes. One of my friends soaked gummy bears in tequila. They were separable at first, but slowly became a single rainbow-colored zombie-multuplet bear-blob.
Scary . . . .5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bah screw it we are never going to agree about this other stuff so whatever. I want to know where one purchases gummy bears with bourbon included.
Step 1: Buy Gummy Bears (The brand I have is Sugarfina Inc.)
Step 2: Buy 22ga hypodermic syringe
Step 3: Buy Bourbon
Step 4: Load syringe with Bourbon
Step 5: With bevel down and at a minor angle insert the needle into the body of the bear with greatest lateral aspect to ensure the body can support the bolus.
Step 6: Withdraw syringe.
Step 7: Repeat steps 1-6 and eat.
Or you could just soak them for 24 hours
Well now we simply have to develop a Design of Experiment don't we? Stand by...I'm a doin' science.9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Bah screw it we are never going to agree about this other stuff so whatever. I want to know where one purchases gummy bears with bourbon included.
Step 1: Buy Gummy Bears (The brand I have is Sugarfina Inc.)
Step 2: Buy 22ga hypodermic syringe
Step 3: Buy Bourbon
Step 4: Load syringe with Bourbon
Step 5: With bevel down and at a minor angle insert the needle into the body of the bear with greatest lateral aspect to ensure the body can support the bolus.
Step 6: Withdraw syringe.
Step 7: Repeat steps 1-6 and eat.
Or you could just soak them for 24 hours
Well now we simply have to develop a Design of Experiment don't we? Stand by...I'm a doin' science.10 -
OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
You don't really need 8 glasses of water- thirst exists for a reason
Almost no one can follow a fad diet forever- and healthful changes will only last with a change you can sustain for the long haul
That's all I got for now
Science>woo27 -
OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
You don't really need 8 glasses of water- thirst exists for a reason
Almost no one can follow a fad diet forever- and healthful changes will only last with a change you can sustain for the long haul
That's all I got for now
Science>woo
You might find more and more people are agreeing with this. Although there are still a lot of propaganda driven "mocumentaries" out there. It muddies the water.
Edited for clarity.4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
You don't really need 8 glasses of water- thirst exists for a reason
Almost no one can follow a fad diet forever- and healthful changes will only last with a change you can sustain for the long haul
That's all I got for now
Science>woo
You might find more and more people are seeing this. Although there are still a lot of propaganda driven "mocumentaries" out there.
Even sarcasm wouldn't make that comment appropriate...2 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Oooh, but Haribo Gummy Peaches! Those are soooo good.
rowntrees fruit gums. /discussion.
1 -
canadianlbs wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Oooh, but Haribo Gummy Peaches! Those are soooo good.
rowntrees fruit gums. /discussion.
Randomly found those the other day on clearance at an office supplies store (???) and omg. So good.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Randomly found those the other day on clearance at an office supplies store (???) and omg. So good.
FRIENDSIES!!!!
except . . . if i were in the same room with you i would steal your fruit gums. they're cruelly intermittent as far as availability in canada.
1 -
CICO
I've seen so many people on here state that this is the Alpha and Omega of losing weight. They quote the Laws of Physics.
Sorry but it isn't that simple. Nothing in life rarely ever is.26 -
1) That sugar free products and/or protein bars are healthy. Read the labels peeps.... they're mostly full of chemical s*** that is no good for either man nor beast! Maltodextrin causes me to scowl and throw things back on the shelf. What the hell.... it was even in some supposedly 'organic' sausages I was looking at the other day.
2) Calories don't matter, just eat the right % of macro's e.g. 5% carb/20% protein/75% fat. Bollocks... calories matter. Stop telling people these lies. If you have a body that needs 2000 cals a day but eat 3000 in the 'right %' of macros you will put on weight!
3) The ketogenic diet is a load of rubbish. Frankly it's about what works for a person - does it matter if it's weight watchers, WLS, Jenny Craig, Paleo, Keto? Isn't the key thing taking ownership of your own destiny - the desire comes from within not from other people.
Hmm... probably said enough to get myself into strife here.11 -
canadianlbs wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Oooh, but Haribo Gummy Peaches! Those are soooo good.
rowntrees fruit gums. /discussion.
I take your Fruit Gums and raise you Fruit Pastilles. And milk bottles (I think you have to be proper British to know what those are).1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »canadianlbs wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
Oooh, but Haribo Gummy Peaches! Those are soooo good.
rowntrees fruit gums. /discussion.
I take your Fruit Gums and raise you Fruit Pastilles. And milk bottles (I think you have to be proper British to know what those are).
I think I love you
h 1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?
Let me revise my time period - the period before man invented hydrogenated vegetable oil and Yellow #5.
So nothing to do with dairy, then, which was the specific food under discussion that it was claimed we were not "meant" to consume. That and gluten (also firmly early agriculture, if not before).
On the other hand, there are a number of things from even the later period that I would have a hard time justifying that we are not "meant" to have, like lots of antibiotics.
I don't know anything about whatever debates exist about Yellow Dye # 5, but here is some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine, under the header "myths":
"Rumors began circulating about tartrazine in the 1990s regarding a link to its consumption (specifically its use in Mountain Dew) and adverse effects on male potency, testicle and penis size, and sperm count. There are no documented cases supporting the claim tartrazine will shrink a man's penis or cause it to stop growing."
I mentioned agricultural periods of development above because that is when humans began to raise animals instead of just hunting them, and that is when they started consuming the milk of some of these animals. This only started 7-8 thousand years ago - placing that in the context of the millions of years that humans have existed in one form or another, it is a blink of the eye. So I don't think that it is illogical to state that we weren't "meant" to consume animal milk, since it is something that we only "recently" started doing. The same with cooking our food - until fire was discovered we ate raw meat, so given that, in the grand scheme of things, we weren't "meant" to eat our food cooked. It doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Humans and animals are able to consume all sorts of substances that they weren't "meant" to eat - the logic of eating things that were nonexistent through much of evolution varies. I watched a goose in the park the other day eat a cigarette butt. There are boneheads at the beach that feed seagulls french fries. I think we can agree that just because a person/animal can eat something doesn't necessarily mean that he/she/it should eat it.
Just an add on. The agricultural revolution was 10,000 years ago, so around 8,000 BC. But even before the agricultural revolution humans were eating grains as part of hunting and gathering. Domestication of animals ( and milk and blood consumption) came before that currently proof as far back as 12,000 years ago. The theory is that hunter gathers domesticated animals and lived a nomadic lifestyle moving with their herds before settling down and adding agriculture to the mix. Don't forget too that while humans have evolved over millions of years as recently as 30,000 years ago there were multiple different subspecies of humans running around the planet. In addition evolution doesn't stop, it is continuous. Just because we didn't eat something 30,000 years ago doesn't mean we're not evolved to eat it now.5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?
Let me revise my time period - the period before man invented hydrogenated vegetable oil and Yellow #5.
So nothing to do with dairy, then, which was the specific food under discussion that it was claimed we were not "meant" to consume. That and gluten (also firmly early agriculture, if not before).
On the other hand, there are a number of things from even the later period that I would have a hard time justifying that we are not "meant" to have, like lots of antibiotics.
I don't know anything about whatever debates exist about Yellow Dye # 5, but here is some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine, under the header "myths":
"Rumors began circulating about tartrazine in the 1990s regarding a link to its consumption (specifically its use in Mountain Dew) and adverse effects on male potency, testicle and penis size, and sperm count. There are no documented cases supporting the claim tartrazine will shrink a man's penis or cause it to stop growing."
I mentioned agricultural periods of development above because that is when humans began to raise animals instead of just hunting them, and that is when they started consuming the milk of some of these animals. This only started 7-8 thousand years ago - placing that in the context of the millions of years that humans have existed in one form or another, it is a blink of the eye. So I don't think that it is illogical to state that we weren't "meant" to consume animal milk, since it is something that we only "recently" started doing. The same with cooking our food - until fire was discovered we ate raw meat, so given that, in the grand scheme of things, we weren't "meant" to eat our food cooked. It doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Humans and animals are able to consume all sorts of substances that they weren't "meant" to eat - the logic of eating things that were nonexistent through much of evolution varies. I watched a goose in the park the other day eat a cigarette butt. There are boneheads at the beach that feed seagulls french fries. I think we can agree that just because a person/animal can eat something doesn't necessarily mean that he/she/it should eat it.
Just an add on. The agricultural revolution was 10,000 years ago, so around 8,000 BC. But even before the agricultural revolution humans were eating grains as part of hunting and gathering. Domestication of animals ( and milk and blood consumption) came before that currently proof as far back as 12,000 years ago. The theory is that hunter gathers domesticated animals and lived a nomadic lifestyle moving with their herds before settling down and adding agriculture to the mix. Don't forget too that while humans have evolved over millions of years as recently as 30,000 years ago there were multiple different subspecies of humans running around the planet. In addition evolution doesn't stop, it is continuous. Just because we didn't eat something 30,000 years ago doesn't mean we're not evolved to eat it now.
So... paleo diet is bunk?3 -
CICO
I've seen so many people on here state that this is the Alpha and Omega of losing weight. They quote the Laws of Physics.
Sorry but it isn't that simple. Nothing in life rarely ever is.
Physics isn't simple.
But the laws of physics apply to everything and everyone, no exception. That's why they're called laws and not suggestions.28 -
LauraInTheWater wrote: »
Also that you can't lose weight because you are on x medication, or you have y disability, etc. I take a significant amount of medications to prevent seizures, 2 of which cause weight gain. I also have knee problems. Yet here I am working, not having seizures, going back to school, AND losing weight. I have no patience for *kittens* and their pity parties.
I agree completely! I also take anti seizure medications that cause weight gain and suffer from physical disabilities but these are obstacles to overcome not fate. I am on 1200 calories a day to maintain weight... it's just my reality with my ability level for activity being so low and the medications. I've never let myself go and never gotten overweight. I similarly have no patience for people's excuses as to staying overweight and giving up trying to be a healthy weight.
1 -
canadianlbs wrote: »- i don't like dogs. i don't hate them, i just seriously don't give a damn about them. and i have only contempt for corporations that let people bring their dogs to work as if everyone just automatically thinks that that's wonderful. that would be great if they'd let me stay home on that day.
Yes! Me too. I'm actually allergic to them too. There's a movement of nurses trying to get "therapy dogs" allowed into hospitals such that each ward would have a resident dog or two. I'm really disgusted and against this.4 -
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.
We see it all the time on these forums and I know we all see it a hundred times a day IRL too.
The former hangs on to the past (past hurts/past events/past perceived injustices) and the latter looks to the next thing and how they can contribute in a meaningful, helpful way.
You can live in fear or live in faith - pick a side carefully.
Some people truly are victims though and deserve care and therapy to put the pieces of their lives back together. Even if they tried to just get on with it, they'd end up mentally ill through repressing and failing to deal with their past traumas. I think your opinion is too dismissive of trauma and doesn't recognise the impact it can have on a person's physical and mental health.9 -
MJ2victory wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »ok I'm ready to weigh in on this (hahaha I crack myself up). Here are my unpopular opinions:
1. Weighing daily is unhealthy. (not to say it isn't tempting)
2. Weight loss should not be your objective. It's a side affect of making healthier choices.
3. Mental health is just as important as physical health (if not more).
4. If you lose weight bc you hate yourself, you will still hate yourself at your goal weight and you WILL gain it back.
Sometimes, losing weight (in and of itself) is the best thing a person can do for their health.
not if they're going to immediately gain it back because they didn't deal with their relationship with food and the emotional baggage that may have caused them to gain the weight.
Who says they didn't deal with those issues as a means to the goal of losing weight?
like I said in my original post: my opinion is that weight loss should be a byproduct, not the goal. The goal is to feel better, be more physically able, not eat emotionally, love yourself, etc. Weight is just your relationship with gravity. If you make lifestyle changes, you may lose weight, but it's about the weakest measurement of health.
Obesity is detrimental to physical health. It's hardly a weak measurement of health. If a person is obese and they have an unhealthy relationship with food, then yes they need to deal with that unhealthy relationship in order to achieve the goal of overcoming obesity because obesity kills.
What a ridiculous oversimplification. There is a correlation between obesity and some illnesses. And do you remember what was talked about in high school about the dangers of assuming causation vs correlation?
No, obesity has been proven to CAUSE deaths. In 2015 four MILLION people died worldwide due to excess body weight. You'd really tout a high school lecture on correlation vs. causation as the authority trumping thousands of scientists and doctors worldwide? The science is very clear that obesity kills. You're deluded if you just think "weight is your relationship with gravity" and nothing more.7 -
OK, dunno if I will be lost in the shuffle, but I'll post mine:
Organic is a scam and a waste of money
GMO are safe and verified and there is no need to label them
o
You might be surprised, but many advocates for GMO labelling weren't asking for it due to safety concerns but for religious reasons. Their religious leaders view genetic modification as playing God and therefore immoral. So they do not want to support what they view to be an immoral industry. This isn't different from requests to label kosher or halal food, so why object to labelling GMOs?
Organic is similarly labelled and desired for by many for moral reasons. Many people buying organic believe in the tenets of organic food production which have higher environmental and animal welfare standards than conventional means. If people are willing to pay extra for eggs produced by free range chickens because free range chickens are happier than barn raised chickens, why not allow that market to exist?10 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?
Let me revise my time period - the period before man invented hydrogenated vegetable oil and Yellow #5.
So nothing to do with dairy, then, which was the specific food under discussion that it was claimed we were not "meant" to consume. That and gluten (also firmly early agriculture, if not before).
On the other hand, there are a number of things from even the later period that I would have a hard time justifying that we are not "meant" to have, like lots of antibiotics.
I don't know anything about whatever debates exist about Yellow Dye # 5, but here is some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine, under the header "myths":
"Rumors began circulating about tartrazine in the 1990s regarding a link to its consumption (specifically its use in Mountain Dew) and adverse effects on male potency, testicle and penis size, and sperm count. There are no documented cases supporting the claim tartrazine will shrink a man's penis or cause it to stop growing."
I mentioned agricultural periods of development above because that is when humans began to raise animals instead of just hunting them, and that is when they started consuming the milk of some of these animals. This only started 7-8 thousand years ago - placing that in the context of the millions of years that humans have existed in one form or another, it is a blink of the eye. So I don't think that it is illogical to state that we weren't "meant" to consume animal milk, since it is something that we only "recently" started doing. The same with cooking our food - until fire was discovered we ate raw meat, so given that, in the grand scheme of things, we weren't "meant" to eat our food cooked. It doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Humans and animals are able to consume all sorts of substances that they weren't "meant" to eat - the logic of eating things that were nonexistent through much of evolution varies. I watched a goose in the park the other day eat a cigarette butt. There are boneheads at the beach that feed seagulls french fries. I think we can agree that just because a person/animal can eat something doesn't necessarily mean that he/she/it should eat it.
Just an add on. The agricultural revolution was 10,000 years ago, so around 8,000 BC. But even before the agricultural revolution humans were eating grains as part of hunting and gathering. Domestication of animals ( and milk and blood consumption) came before that currently proof as far back as 12,000 years ago. The theory is that hunter gathers domesticated animals and lived a nomadic lifestyle moving with their herds before settling down and adding agriculture to the mix. Don't forget too that while humans have evolved over millions of years as recently as 30,000 years ago there were multiple different subspecies of humans running around the planet. In addition evolution doesn't stop, it is continuous. Just because we didn't eat something 30,000 years ago doesn't mean we're not evolved to eat it now.
So... paleo diet is bunk?
I wouldn't call the paleo diet "bunk" so much as an unattainable myth. There was no "one" paleo diet, there were hundreds of thousands of different paleo diets. Every population of humans in each different region had a different diet.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions