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?

1…8283858788…239

Replies

  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    That picture shows the damaging effects of the chemical compound O2. Just think what that stuff may do to the human body on a cellular level.

    I have looked into it, and in every SINGLE case of obesity on record, the subject had a history of long-term exposure to atmospheric O2.

    I'm not going to overstate the link as this theory hasn't gained enough traction within the scientific community to see specific research initiated, but at this point, it is clear that O2 exposure correlates with unwanted weight gain.

    Rflol!
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    theresejesu wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »
    joemac1988 wrote: »
    Mine is that everyone should do what makes them happy. Wanna be vegan? Great! Just don't try to talk me out of a burger. Love crossfit? Awesome! I like bodybuilding, ya'll have fun in your box. You think sugar and carbs will make you fat? That's your right...if you need me I'll be over here enjoying my poptarts. You think fasted cardio is more effective? Sweet, I eat as soon as I wake up so pretty unlikely for me. Etc, etc, etc.

    Basically, live and let live. Crazy, right???

    I 100% agree with this guy...

    At the end of the day though, all any of us are trying to do is defend our respective fitness churches...

    I'm just a sucker for a good debate

    Rather than deal with "churches" and treat this like a matter of faith, I think I'd rather draw my conclusions based on the best available evidence. I'm not inclined to defend anything if there is reliable evidence that it might not be accurate or true.

    Most people form their opinion and then migrate towards the latest research that supports their opinions... But surely not you.

    The difference here is that I want to believe as you low carbers do, I want to believe that I can consume all the meat and dairy I want and that our animal products are not tainted to the point where they just might not be worth it... But I just no better, the fact is, imo, reality bites and are food and health industries are massively corrupt. To believe otherwise is just naive...

    The money is behind meat and dairy and big agriculture, not behind Dr Greger... I'm sorry but we live in a time where you can't always trust the latest research...

    I spend a fair amount of effort trying to be especially critical of supposed evidence that supports my opinions, but if you have instances where you perceive me to filtering research through my opinions I am open to hearing about it. There is always room for improvement.

    By the way, I'm not a low carber. I actually get about 60% of my calories from carbohydrates.

    What you seem to be saying is that it's impossible to know what the truth is, that we all have our "churches" and we should leave it at that. I disagree -- I think it's possible for humans to determine that a claim is true or untrue, to determine whether something is supported by evidence or not.

    The ability to determine what is true is greatly limited by one's paradigm and how easily they are able to shift to, and consider new paradigms, or how entrenched they are in their own paradigm.

    Some know they don't know what they don't know. Others are simply unaware they don't know what they don't know.

    86ca56c6d21fe89fd7889f9224bd44b6--letter-e-irony-examples.jpg
    theresejesu wrote: »
    From what I've learned, the amount of weight lost by the two will be different based on those parameters. There are people who easily lose weight by cutting calories. There are others who struggle and don't seem to be able to make the same gains no matter how hard they try and this discourages them.

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that calories "in" being less than calories "out" won't result in some degree of weight loss, but that's just it.

    The degree of weight lost.

    If the foods you are eating are fighting against your attempts to lose weight, you aren't going to see the same success as someone else who may be eating less of those types of foods. This is where these lectins from grains, legumes, and nightshades can play a very significant role in hindering our efforts.

    Additionally, our microbiota can play a significant role as well. An unhealthy microbiota can hinder our attempts at weight loss. In fact, in studies done a few years ago Amandine Everard at the University of Louvain in Belgium discovered something important about Akkermancia muciniplila, a bacteria that (hopefully) inhabits our microbiota (in our intestines).

    In experiments in mice, they found it interacts with genes. In mice administered Akkermancia m. they found it activated genes to induce an increase in the caoacity to burn fat. They fed the mice a diet high in calories to induce weight gain. The mice that received the Akkermancia m became half as fat as the mice who didn't receive it.

    In humans they discovered levels of Akkermancia muciniplila, are high in thin people, and low in obese people.

    Addotionally, it has been discovered that people have one of 3 basic enterotypes which affect how we utilize macro nutrients and produce and support helpful bacteria such as Akkermancia m.

    As I said, it's much more complicated and intricate than just counting calories.

    I strongly recommend the documentary
    The Gut: Our Second Brain
    where such discoveries as Akkermancia are discussed - available on Amazon Prime for those who have it.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    theresejesu wrote: »
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.

    Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?

    Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.

    So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?

    Everything contributes to making one fat smh

    Well I agree. Even smells can trigger fat stirage, etc.

    Um, wut?
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    theresejesu wrote: »
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.

    Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?

    Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.

    So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?

    Everything contributes to making one fat smh

    Eell I agree. Even smells can trigger fat stirage, etc.

    No that was in regards to you singling out sugar when in fact if you are consuming more calories than you burn everything you eat is contributing to fat gain not just sugar
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    theresejesu wrote: »
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.

    Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?

    Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.

    So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?

    Everything contributes to making one fat smh

    Well I agree. Even smells can trigger fat stirage, etc.

    Huh?
  • clicketykeys
    clicketykeys Posts: 6,580 Member
    theresejesu wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.

    Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?

    Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.

    So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?

    Only if you eat it as part of a calorie surplus. And even then, it only partly contributes. All the other calories help out too!
  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.

    This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.

    NOT FAT burning. Change in water weight. That's it. I actually looked at the study. Not the Dailynews.uk clickbait article.

    If salt intake is high enough, the production of glucocorticoid hormones increase, which influence metabolism and immune function. This was one of the hypotheses offered in the article:

    INCREASED SALT CONSUMPTION INDUCES BODY WATER CONSERVATION AND DECREASES FLUID INTAKE

    published in JCI April 17, 2017

    In followup animal studies on mice by Titze, one of the authors of the study above, he found that as he increased salt in their diet, the less water they drank, and discovered they were increasing production of glucocorticoid hormones which then broke down fat and muscle releasing water.

    I'm not saying people should start drastically increasing their salt intake, as there are potential problems with increased glucocorticoid homrmone increases, such as type 2 diabetes, etc.

    I do find this to be very interesting however.

    None of which was supported by the human data.

    The hypothesis was indeed supported by the human data, it which it was stated:

    "In addition, increased rhythmical glucocorticoid action may increase metabolic water production by promoting protein, fat, and sugar breakdown."
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    theresejesu wrote: »
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.

    Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?

    Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.

    So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?

    Everything contributes to making one fat smh

    Well I agree. Even smells can trigger fat storage, etc.

    So smells can trigger fat storage, now? And what the etc. part?
  • OliveGirl128
    OliveGirl128 Posts: 801 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.

    Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?

    Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.

    So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?

    There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.

    People tend to focus more on sugar because the recommended American diet is so high in carbs which convert to glucose much more easily than say protein.

    Guess whose diets are also high in carbs, even higher than the US? The blue zones, the healthiest and longest living places on earth.

    Yep. I'm currently modeling my woe after one of the blue zone groups and I'm averaging over 200g of carbs a day. Still maintaining fine though, with a current bmi floating around a 20.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    theresejesu wrote: »
    Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.

    This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.

    Nope. It was triggering appetite in response to the body breaking down muscle mass to deal with the increased salt.
  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    edited July 2017
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    theresejesu wrote: »
    Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.

    This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.

    NOT FAT burning. Change in water weight. That's it. I actually looked at the study. Not the Dailynews.uk clickbait article.

    If salt intake is high enough, the production of glucocorticoid hormones increase, which influence metabolism and immune function. This was one of the hypotheses offered in the article:

    INCREASED SALT CONSUMPTION INDUCES BODY WATER CONSERVATION AND DECREASES FLUID INTAKE

    published in JCI April 17, 2017

    In followup animal studies on mice by Titze, one of the authors of the study above, he found that as he increased salt in their diet, the less water they drank, and discovered they were increasing production of glucocorticoid hormones which then broke down fat and muscle releasing water.

    I'm not saying people should start drastically increasing their salt intake, as there are potential problems with increased glucocorticoid homrmone increases, such as type 2 diabetes, etc.

    I do find this to be very interesting however.

    We've discussed this study before. Here's a good piece on it (if the study is still available in full I cannot find it):
    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-high-salt-diet-decreases-thirst-hunger.html
    It takes a lot of energy to conserve water in the face of salt excretion. To do it, the body either must take in more fuel or break down muscle mass. "This predisposes to overeating," said the reports' senior author, Jens Titze, M.D., associate professor of Medicine and of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics....

    Unexpectedly, when dietary salt was increased from six to 12 grams a day, the men drank less water, not more. That suggested they conserved or produced more water.

    In a subsequent study in mice, the researchers showed that high salt induces a catabolic state driven by glucocorticoids that breaks down muscle protein, which is converted into urea by the liver. Urea enables the kidneys to reabsorb water and prevent body water loss while the salt is excreted.

    Muscle wasting is a high price to pay for avoiding dehydration. The alternative is bringing in more fuel - eating more. That may be why the men in the study complained they were hungry.

    Water conservation in response to a high-salt diet may have pathological consequences. Increased levels of glucocorticoids are an independent risk factor for diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease.
    "We have always focused on the role of salt in arterial hypertension. Our findings suggest that there is much more to know—a high salt intake may predispose to metabolic syndrome," Titze said

    So I would not recommend increasing salt as a weight loss trick. For other reasons if appropriate, sure.

    And, as I mentioned, the results of significant increase in salt intake can be associated with negative consequences due to the increase in glucocorticoid hormones. ;)

    As I said, I find this all very interesting.

    I've personally had to increase my salt intake due to autonomic nervous system dysfunction, and it does indeed help.

    These studies have led me to realize I need to watch these other parameters more closely than I understood before.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Issues with raised cortisol can inhibit fat burning, and this has been an observed effect that has been talked about on these boards before.

    Many people report anecdotal incidents of losing weight after vacation, for example, or there are plenty of stories from the pressure-filled world of contest-prep where a "binge" will lead to the scale suddenly moving again. The reason? Reduced stress.

    However, the inverse of lowering stress from a baseline normal rather than elevated back to normal doesn't hold true to my knowledge and I doubt you'd find anything to back that up in human studies.

    You're welcome to try, though.

    If that's what you're not asserting, forgive me if I've lost track of the point you're trying to make here.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories