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
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Penthesilea514 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
American or Canadian $
Oh!!! Amazon price has gone down since the last time I checked, they're down to 1.15. MMMMM
I apologize....
OH, and US.
I don't know what any of these yummies are.
:
A lion bar is what you would get if you crossed a little debbie peanut wafer bar with a snickers bar... Chocolate, rice crisps, nuts, caramel
Also comes in white chocolate....
Okay, here is my unpopular opinion- I think white chocolate is super gross. I won't eat it. I am not that picky a person about food, I will always try something at least once, but nope, really hate white chocolate. My OH loves it and his chocolate stash is always safe from me. Even Shark Week cravings won't compel me to eat it >.<
That's not unpopular to me. White chocolate is nasty.
Moar for me! Yay!
I dinna care if it is real chocolate or not - it's delicious!
You guys are weird.
Now that's what I call a compliment! Seven blessings to you!4 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Penthesilea514 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
American or Canadian $
Oh!!! Amazon price has gone down since the last time I checked, they're down to 1.15. MMMMM
I apologize....
OH, and US.
I don't know what any of these yummies are.:
A lion bar is what you would get if you crossed a little debbie peanut wafer bar with a snickers bar... Chocolate, rice crisps, nuts, caramel
Also comes in white chocolate....
Okay, here is my unpopular opinion- I think white chocolate is super gross. I won't eat it. I am not that picky a person about food, I will always try something at least once, but nope, really hate white chocolate. My OH loves it and his chocolate stash is always safe from me. Even Shark Week cravings won't compel me to eat it >.<
That's not unpopular to me. White chocolate is nasty.
Moar for me! Yay!
I dinna care if it is real chocolate or not - it's delicious!
You guys are weird.
Now that's what I call a compliment! Seven blessings to you!
Nicest thing I've heard all day.
Thank you Ma'am may I have another!
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Penthesilea514 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
American or Canadian $
Oh!!! Amazon price has gone down since the last time I checked, they're down to 1.15. MMMMM
I apologize....
OH, and US.
I don't know what any of these yummies are.:
A lion bar is what you would get if you crossed a little debbie peanut wafer bar with a snickers bar... Chocolate, rice crisps, nuts, caramel
Also comes in white chocolate....
Okay, here is my unpopular opinion- I think white chocolate is super gross. I won't eat it. I am not that picky a person about food, I will always try something at least once, but nope, really hate white chocolate. My OH loves it and his chocolate stash is always safe from me. Even Shark Week cravings won't compel me to eat it >.<
That's not unpopular to me. White chocolate is nasty.
Moar for me! Yay!
I dinna care if it is real chocolate or not - it's delicious!
You guys are weird.
Now that's what I call a compliment! Seven blessings to you!
Nicest thing I've heard all day.
Thank you Ma'am may I have another!
Well, you don't like peach-flavored things, so you are double-weird!1 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Penthesilea514 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
American or Canadian $
Oh!!! Amazon price has gone down since the last time I checked, they're down to 1.15. MMMMM
I apologize....
OH, and US.
I don't know what any of these yummies are.:
A lion bar is what you would get if you crossed a little debbie peanut wafer bar with a snickers bar... Chocolate, rice crisps, nuts, caramel
Also comes in white chocolate....
Okay, here is my unpopular opinion- I think white chocolate is super gross. I won't eat it. I am not that picky a person about food, I will always try something at least once, but nope, really hate white chocolate. My OH loves it and his chocolate stash is always safe from me. Even Shark Week cravings won't compel me to eat it >.<
That's not unpopular to me. White chocolate is nasty.
Moar for me! Yay!
I dinna care if it is real chocolate or not - it's delicious!
You guys are weird.
Agreed 1 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Penthesilea514 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
American or Canadian $
Oh!!! Amazon price has gone down since the last time I checked, they're down to 1.15. MMMMM
I apologize....
OH, and US.
I don't know what any of these yummies are.:
A lion bar is what you would get if you crossed a little debbie peanut wafer bar with a snickers bar... Chocolate, rice crisps, nuts, caramel
Also comes in white chocolate....
Okay, here is my unpopular opinion- I think white chocolate is super gross. I won't eat it. I am not that picky a person about food, I will always try something at least once, but nope, really hate white chocolate. My OH loves it and his chocolate stash is always safe from me. Even Shark Week cravings won't compel me to eat it >.<
That's not unpopular to me. White chocolate is nasty.
But, but - have you tried it with little cookie bits mixed in like in Hershey's Cookies and Crème bar?!?!?
It's so good!3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Penthesilea514 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
American or Canadian $
Oh!!! Amazon price has gone down since the last time I checked, they're down to 1.15. MMMMM
I apologize....
OH, and US.
I don't know what any of these yummies are.:
A lion bar is what you would get if you crossed a little debbie peanut wafer bar with a snickers bar... Chocolate, rice crisps, nuts, caramel
Also comes in white chocolate....
Okay, here is my unpopular opinion- I think white chocolate is super gross. I won't eat it. I am not that picky a person about food, I will always try something at least once, but nope, really hate white chocolate. My OH loves it and his chocolate stash is always safe from me. Even Shark Week cravings won't compel me to eat it >.<
That's not unpopular to me. White chocolate is nasty.
But, but - have you tried it with little cookie bits mixed in like in Hershey's Cookies and Crème bar?!?!?
It's so good!
Try this as a S'more - amazeballz!!!3 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Penthesilea514 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
American or Canadian $
Oh!!! Amazon price has gone down since the last time I checked, they're down to 1.15. MMMMM
I apologize....
OH, and US.
I don't know what any of these yummies are.:
A lion bar is what you would get if you crossed a little debbie peanut wafer bar with a snickers bar... Chocolate, rice crisps, nuts, caramel
Also comes in white chocolate....
Okay, here is my unpopular opinion- I think white chocolate is super gross. I won't eat it. I am not that picky a person about food, I will always try something at least once, but nope, really hate white chocolate. My OH loves it and his chocolate stash is always safe from me. Even Shark Week cravings won't compel me to eat it >.<
That's not unpopular to me. White chocolate is nasty.
But, but - have you tried it with little cookie bits mixed in like in Hershey's Cookies and Crème bar?!?!?
It's so good!
That's my husband's favorite. I have tried it and nope, still nasty to me lol.1 -
MJ2victory wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »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.
you can think my argument is stupid or disagree with me but no scientist is going to say that obesity causes death. Show me that article. They all say it's linked or it can lead to a cause of death. Your weight is the result of over eating and/or a sedentary lifestyle. Overeating and/or a sedentary lifestyle? leads to excess weight. leads to several causes of death. Obesity doesn't literally kill you.
Semantics. Obesity = excess fat. When fat is unnaturally abundant it wrecks havoc with several systems. It's not an idle organ that just hangs there minding its own business. The mere act of being obese increases the risk for the top killer diseases. Is an active obese better off than an inactive obese? Sure, but an active lean person has better chances than both.
Semantics are important. Like the way you called fat people just "obese" and called thin people "lean person." Fun dehumanization in action. Why would "an obese" ever want to make healthy changes while being made to feel inhuman? We are not disagreeing, you just don't like my words. But they're important to me.
"Obese" is a clinical term referring to the presence of more fat on the body than is healthy (simplified definition). It's not a "dehumanization" or even a derogatory term.7 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »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.
you can think my argument is stupid or disagree with me but no scientist is going to say that obesity causes death. Show me that article. They all say it's linked or it can lead to a cause of death. Your weight is the result of over eating and/or a sedentary lifestyle. Overeating and/or a sedentary lifestyle? leads to excess weight. leads to several causes of death. Obesity doesn't literally kill you.
Semantics. Obesity = excess fat. When fat is unnaturally abundant it wrecks havoc with several systems. It's not an idle organ that just hangs there minding its own business. The mere act of being obese increases the risk for the top killer diseases. Is an active obese better off than an inactive obese? Sure, but an active lean person has better chances than both.
Semantics are important. Like the way you called fat people just "obese" and called thin people "lean person." Fun dehumanization in action. Why would "an obese" ever want to make healthy changes while being made to feel inhuman? We are not disagreeing, you just don't like my words. But they're important to me.
"Obese" is a clinical term referring to the presence of more fat on the body than is healthy (simplified definition). It's not a "dehumanization" or even a derogatory term.
I think the issue is with it being used as a noun - "an obese" - rather than an adjective - "an obese person," particularly when the alternative is called a "lean person." That's why it feels dehumanizing.12 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
Sent from the uk at a quick glance will cost $45 for 40 sent snail mail and up to $60 sent airmail. (Not looked at customs and restrictions)
I sent stuff overseas all the time, it won't cost that much for that many.
Edit: That was a bit vague. £10 at a push for postage.1 -
Penthesilea514 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
American or Canadian $
Oh!!! Amazon price has gone down since the last time I checked, they're down to 1.15. MMMMM
I apologize....
OH, and US.
I don't know what any of these yummies are.:
A lion bar is what you would get if you crossed a little debbie peanut wafer bar with a snickers bar... Chocolate, rice crisps, nuts, caramel
Also comes in white chocolate....
Okay, here is my unpopular opinion- I think white chocolate is super gross. I won't eat it. I am not that picky a person about food, I will always try something at least once, but nope, really hate white chocolate. My OH loves it and his chocolate stash is always safe from me. Even Shark Week cravings won't compel me to eat it >.<
I'm not a big fan but largely because it's just too sweet for me.1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »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.
you can think my argument is stupid or disagree with me but no scientist is going to say that obesity causes death. Show me that article. They all say it's linked or it can lead to a cause of death. Your weight is the result of over eating and/or a sedentary lifestyle. Overeating and/or a sedentary lifestyle? leads to excess weight. leads to several causes of death. Obesity doesn't literally kill you.
Semantics. Obesity = excess fat. When fat is unnaturally abundant it wrecks havoc with several systems. It's not an idle organ that just hangs there minding its own business. The mere act of being obese increases the risk for the top killer diseases. Is an active obese better off than an inactive obese? Sure, but an active lean person has better chances than both.
Semantics are important. Like the way you called fat people just "obese" and called thin people "lean person." Fun dehumanization in action. Why would "an obese" ever want to make healthy changes while being made to feel inhuman? We are not disagreeing, you just don't like my words. But they're important to me.
"Obese" is a clinical term referring to the presence of more fat on the body than is healthy (simplified definition). It's not a "dehumanization" or even a derogatory term.
I think the issue is with it being used as a noun - "an obese" - rather than an adjective - "an obese person," particularly when the alternative is called a "lean person." That's why it feels dehumanizing.
this was the quote: "Is an active obese better off than an inactive obese? Sure, but an active lean person has better chances than both."2 -
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.
and 99.9% of those comments say eat whatever you like but also make sure that you get adequate nutrition and macros..
I have yet to find this mythical person advocating for a diet of 100% cookies as long as it fits your calories...
After wading through a previous discussion or two in this thread, I'm sorely tempted. Cookies all day sounds really good right now.
(Is that enough?)2 -
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.
"Eat what you want" doesn't mean "eat as much as you want." Learning to "reduc[e] the sugary and fatty meals and treats" is exactly what they (IIFYMers) mean. It's learning to eat within your calorie limits for when you aren't tracking (if you choose to stop tracking) in a way that is sustainable, since most people don't expect to go without those pleasures forever.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Apples give me a stomachache. Therefore people aren't necessarily meant to eat apples?
Well, what evidence can you provide that we were meant to eat apples?
Adam and Eve.
That probably wasn't an apple and they weren't supposed to eat it. Not that I am arguing against eating apples, or any non-poisonous fruit...
Yeah, it probably wasn't an apple, and they were told it was the only thing in the garden they weren't supposed to eat, therefore we were meant to eat apples. QED.
Oh, wait, you mean there's no evidence there were any apples in the garden? Oh, well. ;-)
I think it's weird that people are supposed to prove that we were meant to eat apples. I don't think humans were meant to eat anything in particular, including apples, but in that apples are reasonably nutritious and not harmful and taste good, I would take exception to the idea that humans are not MEANT to eat them since supposedly at some point in human development humans (at least humans in certain places) did not.
On the whole, I think the whole meant/non meant applies only if one is making some sort of argument based on the intent of a creator or an idea of evolution (as in evolved to be perfectly suited to an environment and food and then stopped) that is entirely unscientific.
(I realize this discussion had moved on, but it was more entertaining that many of the subsequent ones.)2 -
This content has been removed.
-
MJ2victory wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »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.
you can think my argument is stupid or disagree with me but no scientist is going to say that obesity causes death. Show me that article. They all say it's linked or it can lead to a cause of death. Your weight is the result of over eating and/or a sedentary lifestyle. Overeating and/or a sedentary lifestyle? leads to excess weight. leads to several causes of death. Obesity doesn't literally kill you.
Semantics. Obesity = excess fat. When fat is unnaturally abundant it wrecks havoc with several systems. It's not an idle organ that just hangs there minding its own business. The mere act of being obese increases the risk for the top killer diseases. Is an active obese better off than an inactive obese? Sure, but an active lean person has better chances than both.
Semantics are important. Like the way you called fat people just "obese" and called thin people "lean person." Fun dehumanization in action. Why would "an obese" ever want to make healthy changes while being made to feel inhuman? We are not disagreeing, you just don't like my words. But they're important to me.
"Obese" is a clinical term referring to the presence of more fat on the body than is healthy (simplified definition). It's not a "dehumanization" or even a derogatory term.
I think the issue is with it being used as a noun - "an obese" - rather than an adjective - "an obese person," particularly when the alternative is called a "lean person." That's why it feels dehumanizing.
this was the quote: "Is an active obese better off than an inactive obese? Sure, but an active lean person has better chances than both."
Many people here -- including amusedmonkey -- do not live in the US. I'd think there's a decent chance, therefore, that someone may not be a native English speaker (even if their English is as amazing as some of the people here who I know are not). Therefore, to parse the fact that someone uses "obese" as a noun and assume based on that that that person -- who has spoken about having been quite obese, and about preferring overweight body types, if memory serves (apologies if it does not and I'm mixing you up with someone else, amusedmonkey) -- to jump to the conclusion that that person is intentionally "dehumanizing" the obese* strikes me as at best problematic and potentially extremely offensive (certainly on on a forum where correcting the misspelling of lose is not permitted).
*My use of just "obese" in that sentence is correct, and if I replaced it with lean (as I would if talking about the use of that term), it would also be correct. I see obese and lean as terms that would be correct to use as a collective noun (proceeded with "the") meaning all people who are described with that adjective. I would not use either with "a" or "an" before them, as that sounds wrong to me, as a native English speaker, at least in the particular dialect of English I am most familiar with (US midwestern). Some adjectives are often used as nouns too, though: a male rather than a male person (or a man) is not uncommon, especially in specific usages (like a police report).8 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
If you can get Lion Bars for less than $2.50 each delivered we might be able to find an arrangement.
Sent from the uk at a quick glance will cost $45 for 40 sent snail mail and up to $60 sent airmail. (Not looked at customs and restrictions)
I sent stuff overseas all the time, it won't cost that much for that many.
Edit: That was a bit vague. £10 at a push for postage.
Up to 2kg is 13.35 snail 19.65/22.45 normal up to 66.85 priority plus cost of bars and packaging. Around $45 dollars. Prices taken from r.m website
Gotcha now! Thought you were just talking about the post cost. and snail mail isn't really a thing anymore, it's just an upsell. Because everything goes on a plane now. it's rare i have anything take more than a week to get anywhere (other than Canada, who seem to really struggle sending and receiving overseas at the moment) and I probably send over 100 parcels a year conservatively.
If I was using a courier (Parcelforce) then it wouldn't be them, outrageously expensive. I used UPS for a reeeaaallly heavy package a couple of years ago, incidentally largely candy and it was "only" £25.
Anyway, so off topic!2 -
I hate how when you are waiting at an office for a doctor or a lawyer or anything they always say have a seat and everyone is always sitting I preferred to stand when I am waiting. I sit all day long at my job why would I want to sit more !? Everyone always has to be sitting down for everything and everyone always goes out of their way to make sure your sitting or have a seat in any circumstance. I think it's lazy. (For people who don't have medical conditions or are impaired). Not saying everyone has to be standing but I hate how people act like your insane if you prefer to stand and wait or not be sitting at every chance.3
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »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.
you can think my argument is stupid or disagree with me but no scientist is going to say that obesity causes death. Show me that article. They all say it's linked or it can lead to a cause of death. Your weight is the result of over eating and/or a sedentary lifestyle. Overeating and/or a sedentary lifestyle? leads to excess weight. leads to several causes of death. Obesity doesn't literally kill you.
Semantics. Obesity = excess fat. When fat is unnaturally abundant it wrecks havoc with several systems. It's not an idle organ that just hangs there minding its own business. The mere act of being obese increases the risk for the top killer diseases. Is an active obese better off than an inactive obese? Sure, but an active lean person has better chances than both.
Semantics are important. Like the way you called fat people just "obese" and called thin people "lean person." Fun dehumanization in action. Why would "an obese" ever want to make healthy changes while being made to feel inhuman? We are not disagreeing, you just don't like my words. But they're important to me.
"Obese" is a clinical term referring to the presence of more fat on the body than is healthy (simplified definition). It's not a "dehumanization" or even a derogatory term.
I think the issue is with it being used as a noun - "an obese" - rather than an adjective - "an obese person," particularly when the alternative is called a "lean person." That's why it feels dehumanizing.
this was the quote: "Is an active obese better off than an inactive obese? Sure, but an active lean person has better chances than both."
Many people here -- including amusedmonkey -- do not live in the US. I'd think there's a decent chance, therefore, that someone may not be a native English speaker (even if their English is as amazing as some of the people here who I know are not). Therefore, to parse the fact that someone uses "obese" as a noun and assume based on that that that person -- who has spoken about having been quite obese, and about preferring overweight body types, if memory serves (apologies if it does not and I'm mixing you up with someone else, amusedmonkey) -- to jump to the conclusion that that person is intentionally "dehumanizing" the obese* strikes me as at best problematic and potentially extremely offensive (certainly on on a forum where correcting the misspelling of lose is not permitted).
*My use of just "obese" in that sentence is correct, and if I replaced it with lean (as I would if talking about the use of that term), it would also be correct. I see obese and lean as terms that would be correct to use as a collective noun (proceeded with "the") meaning all people who are described with that adjective. I would not use either with "a" or "an" before them, as that sounds wrong to me, as a native English speaker, at least in the particular dialect of English I am most familiar with (US midwestern). Some adjectives are often used as nouns too, though: a male rather than a male person (or a man) is not uncommon, especially in specific usages (like a police report).
You're not mixing me up with someone else. I openly prefer overweight types and was content with my body at my highest, and if not for my diabetes risk I would stop and maintain at my current weight because it's comfortable in so many ways and I get the perks of both worlds, fat and "not fat".5 -
clicketykeys wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »MJ2victory wrote: »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.
you can think my argument is stupid or disagree with me but no scientist is going to say that obesity causes death. Show me that article. They all say it's linked or it can lead to a cause of death. Your weight is the result of over eating and/or a sedentary lifestyle. Overeating and/or a sedentary lifestyle? leads to excess weight. leads to several causes of death. Obesity doesn't literally kill you.
Semantics. Obesity = excess fat. When fat is unnaturally abundant it wrecks havoc with several systems. It's not an idle organ that just hangs there minding its own business. The mere act of being obese increases the risk for the top killer diseases. Is an active obese better off than an inactive obese? Sure, but an active lean person has better chances than both.
Semantics are important. Like the way you called fat people just "obese" and called thin people "lean person." Fun dehumanization in action. Why would "an obese" ever want to make healthy changes while being made to feel inhuman? We are not disagreeing, you just don't like my words. But they're important to me.
"Obese" is a clinical term referring to the presence of more fat on the body than is healthy (simplified definition). It's not a "dehumanization" or even a derogatory term.
I think the issue is with it being used as a noun - "an obese" - rather than an adjective - "an obese person," particularly when the alternative is called a "lean person." That's why it feels dehumanizing.
Please, let's see if we can find even more ways to take what people say as offensive despite their actual intent.13 -
Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I hate how when you are waiting at an office for a doctor or a lawyer or anything they always say have a seat and everyone is always sitting I preferred to stand when I am waiting. I sit all day long at my job why would I want to sit more !? Everyone always has to be sitting down for everything and everyone always goes out of their way to make sure your sitting or have a seat in any circumstance. I think it's lazy. (For people who don't have medical conditions or are impaired). Not saying everyone has to be standing but I hate how people act like your insane if you prefer to stand and wait or not be sitting at every chance.
Pretty sure it's just an attempt at hospitality as most people are more comfortable sitting. I don't think they mean "you may not stand."9 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I hate how when you are waiting at an office for a doctor or a lawyer or anything they always say have a seat and everyone is always sitting I preferred to stand when I am waiting. I sit all day long at my job why would I want to sit more !? Everyone always has to be sitting down for everything and everyone always goes out of their way to make sure your sitting or have a seat in any circumstance. I think it's lazy. (For people who don't have medical conditions or are impaired). Not saying everyone has to be standing but I hate how people act like your insane if you prefer to stand and wait or not be sitting at every chance.
Pretty sure it's just an attempt at hospitality as most people are more comfortable sitting. I don't think they mean "you may not stand."
Actually, I, too, have had people be a little weird about it - act sort of nervous about it, as if I were about to do something else odd. Partly it may be that some waiting areas have no logical-seeming place to stand. A couple of times, there's been a bit of a weird dance with some polite, well-bred young person who felt they should give up their chair to me (grey-haired older woman), when I really preferred to stand. Heh.
Not a big deal, IME, though - no hostility or anything.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »I hate how when you are waiting at an office for a doctor or a lawyer or anything they always say have a seat and everyone is always sitting I preferred to stand when I am waiting. I sit all day long at my job why would I want to sit more !? Everyone always has to be sitting down for everything and everyone always goes out of their way to make sure your sitting or have a seat in any circumstance. I think it's lazy. (For people who don't have medical conditions or are impaired). Not saying everyone has to be standing but I hate how people act like your insane if you prefer to stand and wait or not be sitting at every chance.
Pretty sure it's just an attempt at hospitality as most people are more comfortable sitting. I don't think they mean "you may not stand."
Actually, I, too, have had people be a little weird about it - act sort of nervous about it, as if I were about to do something else odd. Partly it may be that some waiting areas have no logical-seeming place to stand. A couple of times, there's been a bit of a weird dance with some polite, well-bred young person who felt they should give up their chair to me (grey-haired older woman), when I really preferred to stand. Heh.
Not a big deal, IME, though - no hostility or anything.
I will admit, the one time I was in a waiting room and there was a person standing, it was really weird.
It was a really tiny waiting room and there really was no good place to stand, but to make matters worse, she was standing in the worst possible place out of a plehtora of bad places. It was awkward.
I think I'm going to stand the next time I go to that same waiting room. I'm wondering if I can find a better spot!2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Apples give me a stomachache. Therefore people aren't necessarily meant to eat apples?
Well, what evidence can you provide that we were meant to eat apples?
Adam and Eve.
That probably wasn't an apple and they weren't supposed to eat it. Not that I am arguing against eating apples, or any non-poisonous fruit...
Yeah, it probably wasn't an apple, and they were told it was the only thing in the garden they weren't supposed to eat, therefore we were meant to eat apples. QED.
Oh, wait, you mean there's no evidence there were any apples in the garden? Oh, well. ;-)
I think it's weird that people are supposed to prove that we were meant to eat apples. I don't think humans were meant to eat anything in particular, including apples, but in that apples are reasonably nutritious and not harmful and taste good, I would take exception to the idea that humans are not MEANT to eat them since supposedly at some point in human development humans (at least humans in certain places) did not.
On the whole, I think the whole meant/non meant applies only if one is making some sort of argument based on the intent of a creator or an idea of evolution (as in evolved to be perfectly suited to an environment and food and then stopped) that is entirely unscientific.
(I realize this discussion had moved on, but it was more entertaining that many of the subsequent ones.)
(I commented for similar reasons, everything else was so serious
. Plus, the whole apple misconception gives apples a bad rep and they can't stand up for themselves.)
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Psst. ....all you sugar addicts.
I can supply all sorts of British goodies. ...for the right price of course
I might know someone, ahem, who smuggled Kinder Surprises into the States earlier this year. Ahem.
Apparently a way has been discovered to legally and overtly import them for commercial sale. I saw an article on the subject earlier this year.
I checked in April and they're still contraband. However, Kinder has developed a new thing called Kinder Joy where it's an egg but one side is a scoopy delicious thing and the other side the toy. Skirting the whole people are stupid and will eat the egg and toy deal. I think those are being launched in the US though we have them here as well as the Surprises.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Wait, am I the supplier?
nah, don't worry. you're not implicated :tongue.
the drug store i constantly visit in hopes has had a shipment.
0 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »That ALL forms of calorie counting, weight loss dieting, food restriction that is not based on DOCTOR DIAGNOSED allergies or orders to cut a food from your diet, exercise intended for "body sculpting", and the like are forms of eating/body dysmorphic disorders that cause anywhere from mild to severe mental and social consequences for those engaging in them; and can (although do not always) lead to severe physical effects in those practicing them. I believe most of the people who use MFP have unrecognized eating or body dysmorphic disorders, mostly orthorexia.
And here you are ...6 -
jseams1234 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »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...
Lol.
@nutmegoreo - they deleted that mean post I was multi-quoting and left part of yours still up - makes it look like I was just quoting you and pepptpea, so I get flagged. heh
I'm glad you cleared that up. It made no sense as I read it (the mean post gone).
Though I am somewhat curious now, haha...0 -
jseams1234 wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »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...
Lol.
@nutmegoreo - they deleted that mean post I was multi-quoting and left part of yours still up - makes it look like I was just quoting you and pepptpea, so I get flagged. heh
I'm glad you cleared that up. It made no sense as I read it (the mean post gone).
Though I am somewhat curious now, haha...
It was a pretty raw and direct attack on a previous posters appearance.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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