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
-
SiegfriedXXL wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
I never implied that actually. In fact, I mentioned social media as a possible culprit. I also think that mental illness plays a role in what the bullying causes re:escalation.
I wouldn't want to give the impression that I am unsymathetic. I'm just genuinely puzzled as to what makes some people take severe, actual, bullying and get past it, and what makes other resort to violence, either towards themselves or others.
What makes anyone respond differently to similar stimulus?
I have a tendency to suffer bouts of clinical depression and was obviously suffering from that. That's a biochemical thing that you might not have experienced. When you add in the stuff I had going on at home and top it off with the stuff going on at school? I couldn't see any daylight.
I can only speak as someone who suffered depression and made a suicide attempt. I can't speak for anyone else. Depression lies to you. That's what was different for me. Instead of making you stronger, hardships make you weaker when you're depressed.12 -
SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.
Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now
The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.
Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.
This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.
I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)
But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.
Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.
Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.
Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?
That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)
I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.
There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.
Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?
The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.
I have seen the term 'bullying' applied to something as simple as strongly disagreeing with someone, so I would say that what is classified as 'bullying' today has a much broader definition than what our generation would have called 'bullying'.
I agree with this. The same with "shaming" and "judging" - these were once very grave acts that had very heavy, serious connotations. Now the most benign comments are found to be the decimators of self-esteem and spark (faux?) outrage about sensitivity and self-esteem.
I referenced a dadbod as being "dumpy" earlier in this thread and was accused of "body shaming". My dad actually told me I was getting dumpy in my 20s because...I was getting dumpy. It stung a little and then I got over it.
Not to beat a dead, or dumpy horse, but context is everything. If my dad told me I was getting dumpy (btw, he has) I would take it as coming from a family member concerned about me. Some a$$hat on the street calling me dumpy has no entree into my life or circumstances and therefore no right to say it. The motives are different. One is my dad worried about my health. The other is an idiot trying to shame me. Again, I have plenty of tickets to Hell to give to people like the latter.
Exactly.1 -
Some believe hunger is a fearful terrible thing to be avoided at all costs.
I kinda like it. A little twinge in my tummy makes me feel pleased with myself and I enjoy my food more when I do eat it.
Actually I feel much the same way. Sometimes I find that hunger focuses me, makes food taste better and more enjoyable. I vastly prefer a big meal or two to several small bites (and I almost never "snack").2 -
My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.51
-
stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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.
Which carbs do they eat?
Why do you care, you simply said the US diet is high in carbs.
I don't see how that response is helpful in any way.2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »But that's far from the only reason. From that same source:Scientists and researchers rely on mice and rats for several reasons. One is convenience: rodents are small, easily housed and maintained, and adapt well to new surroundings. They also reproduce quickly and have a short lifespan of two to three years, so several generations of mice can be observed in a relatively short period of time.
Mice and rats are also relatively inexpensive and can be bought in large quantities from commercial producers that breed rodents specifically for research. The rodents are also generally mild-tempered and docile, making them easy for researchers to handle, although some types of mice and rats can be more difficult to restrain than others.
Most of the mice and rats used in medical trials are inbred so that, other than sex differences, they are almost identical genetically. This helps make the results of medical trials more uniform, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute. As a minimum requirement, mice used in experiments must be of the same purebred species.
So, besides the reason you quoted above, they're cheap, easy to house and maintain, adaptable, short-lived, malleable, and frequently inbred. I don't think these other factors irrelevant, if @stanmann571 is correct in stating that
.animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior.
And none of the other reasons you quoted above negate the point I was making which is why it was unnecessary to include them.
And the portion I did quote does indeed negate his claim. The other factors have no relevance to his claim, and conflating issues doesn't make them have any relevance, it just confuses the picture.
The reason his claim is false is precisely because
Another reason rodents are used as models in medical testing is that their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans, and many symptoms of human conditions can be replicated in mice and rats. "Rats and mice are mammals that share many]/u] processes with humans and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions," said Jenny Haliski, a representative for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare."
https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html
That does not sound at all the same as
"animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior."
How can mice share many processes with humans, with their genetic, biologic and behavior characteristics closely resembling those of humans, and end up with almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolism?
That makes no logical sense.
So which should we believe?
1 -
2
-
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.htmlIt 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.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that they were considering 6 g salt a day "low salt" and 12 g "high salt"
For reference, the RDA is for most people 1.5 to 2 grams daily.
I don't think the were calling 6g/day "low" salt.
They were using two levels of increased salt intake and comparing results.0 -
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.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
The CICO method mechanizes our bodies. But our bodies aren't machines, not in such a simplistic sense. Thoughts, emotions, activities, hormonal profile, circadian rhythm, food choices (which can even switch on and off genes - epigenetics), the bacteria in our guts which affect our immune system and brain influencing how we feel and perceive and react to our world: all these affect our energy requirements, and thus our caloric needs.
We are much more complicated than a simple CICO can account for. For some, it works great. For others, though, it doesn't, because it simply can't account for all those variables.
What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet. Fructose, for instance, doesn't do a great job lowering the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
People look at what happens to them and then try to use their personal experience as a plumbline for everyone else without considering their individual experience is governed by a variety of factors they aren't even aware of, factors which vary from individual to individual. We are all subject to falling into this trap, and we probably all do from time to time. The danger is first to ourselves when we allow ourselves to become judgemental of others instead of understanding, and second, this can become damaging to the other.
This is true, but people get mired in the irrelevant details as I suspect you are doing now.
Pareto these variables: CI, CO, thoughts, emotions, activities, hormones, cricadian rhythm, macros, micros, epigenetics, microbiome, etc.
CI and CO combined amount to >80% of impact.
Hormones 5-10%
The rest ~1%
What variables are you going to prioritize?
I have to disagree, I don't believe I'm getting mired in irrelevant details at all. How are these factors irrelevant?
If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days? You would need to do lab tests and calculations. The best we can do is to approximate.
For instance,
"..a greater intake of sugar calories stimulates more insulin resistance and more fat storage than other types of calories do, even when the total calorie intake remains the same."
The Salt Fix
Author referencing study of which he was a co-author:
Added Fructose: a principle driver of type 2 diabetes mellitus and it's consequences
Mayo Clin. Proc 90 (3): 372-381.
There is much more going on in our bodies than simple CICO can account for.11 -
theresejesu wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »But that's far from the only reason. From that same source:Scientists and researchers rely on mice and rats for several reasons. One is convenience: rodents are small, easily housed and maintained, and adapt well to new surroundings. They also reproduce quickly and have a short lifespan of two to three years, so several generations of mice can be observed in a relatively short period of time.
Mice and rats are also relatively inexpensive and can be bought in large quantities from commercial producers that breed rodents specifically for research. The rodents are also generally mild-tempered and docile, making them easy for researchers to handle, although some types of mice and rats can be more difficult to restrain than others.
Most of the mice and rats used in medical trials are inbred so that, other than sex differences, they are almost identical genetically. This helps make the results of medical trials more uniform, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute. As a minimum requirement, mice used in experiments must be of the same purebred species.
So, besides the reason you quoted above, they're cheap, easy to house and maintain, adaptable, short-lived, malleable, and frequently inbred. I don't think these other factors irrelevant, if @stanmann571 is correct in stating that
.animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior.
And none of the other reasons you quoted above negate the point I was making which is why it was unnecessary to include them.
And the portion I did quote does indeed negate his claim. The other factors have no relevance to his claim, and conflating issues doesn't make them have any relevance, it just confuses the picture.
The reason his claim is false is precisely because
Another reason rodents are used as models in medical testing is that their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans, and many symptoms of human conditions can be replicated in mice and rats. "Rats and mice are mammals that share many]/u] processes with humans and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions," said Jenny Haliski, a representative for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare."
https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html
That does not sound at all the same as
"animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior."
How can mice share many processes with humans, with their genetic, biologic and behavior characteristics closely resembling those of humans, and end up with almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolism?
That makes no logical sense.
So which should we believe?
Symptoms of genetic/biological/behavior in a primarily seed/nut eating mammal correlate very poorly to metabolic conditions of a meat/grain/vegetable heavy omnivore.
For medical safety testing mice are an adequate first line of testing. For diet/health markers they're very poor.7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think if you have an obese child you are a poor parent
I disagree, My mum did all she could to get me to eat better, I would buy sweets etc from the shop without her knowing, plus my dad's side of the family are all big so that did not help me there but I am not about to blame my weight on my dad's side, I know I did wrong, I would sneak food whenever I could, have double servings at school, sneak down in the middle of the night and eat food, she did everything she could to stop me gaining weight and to lose it, I still remember her forcing me to do aerobics workouts with her, the arguments it caused.
She is not a poor parent she was the best parent I could ever ask for, please don't blame the parents as they can do everything to stop their child gaining weight but if they want food they will sneak it, lie about it etc.
I know some parents do give into their kids and are labeled feeders etc but not all parents are like this at all.
Take care.11 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?19 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
I'm pretty sure that's exactly the assertion that was made. It seems that there's an utter breakdown in communication.9 -
theresejesu wrote: »If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days?
You seem to be exaggerating how much they affect metabolism. (How many calories we burn is going to be most affected by set things and movement.)
More significantly, you know how many calories you burn over a period of time (and on average over shorter periods of time) by results. They should not vary dramatically from week to week if movement is constant.
The idea that you need to know exactly for any practical purpose isn't right.
Thus, CICO works even though we will not know exact numbers or every input.9 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
If that's where your head goes... More broadly, there are historically people who are in a position to say what they want, and people who were in a position to have to cop it.
Thing is, there was never a time where people were more free to say what they want than now, save for the fact there was a much bigger imbalance of power. "Political correctness" isn't the restraint of people's ability to say what they want - it's the term being used by people who believe they should be able to say what they want without push back when they're called out on their rudeness/impropriety/bullcrap by people who are finally saying "you know what? I don't have to take your crap and neither does anyone else".
I find it bizarre that at the same time as people seem to bemoan the lack of manners in the younger generations, they also mourn the fact that they apparently used to allowed to be as rude an insulting as they want, and it hurts their poor little feelings that they're not allowed to be asshats anymore, without being called out for it.
There has never been, in hundreds of years of civilization, less social rules and restrictions on interactions between people, yet it seems that one of the loudest complaints is that they're not allowed to be ruder, more harsh, more confrontational. What a wonderful world full of freedom we live in. If only people would stand up for 'rights' that actually make the world a better place.
45 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
If that's where your head goes... More broadly, there are historically people who are in a position to say what they want, and people who were in a position to have to cop it.
Thing is, there was never a time where people were more free to say what they want than now, save for the fact there was a much bigger imbalance of power. "Political correctness" isn't the restraint of people's ability to say what they want - it's the term being used by people who believe they should be able to say what they want without push back when they're called out on their rudeness/impropriety/bullcrap by people who are finally saying "you know what? I don't have to take your crap and neither does anyone else".
It's exactly a restraint on ability to say what I want and need. As a supervisor/manager/leader, if I have two subordinates who are underperforming, and one of them generally fits the same demographics as I do and one does not. IF I provide each of them with correction and guidance for success, in order to prevent having a formal complaint filed, I must have at least one witness when counseling the one who does not match my demographic, to mitigate the risk of a discrimination claim being filed. Even though they are both underperforming in the exact same way, and I follow the exact same script, If there is not a witness(and even if there is) there is a substantial possibility that I will be accused of making the correction due to demographic and not performance reasons.
It's disruptive and counterproductive.17 -
theresejesu 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.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
The CICO method mechanizes our bodies. But our bodies aren't machines, not in such a simplistic sense. Thoughts, emotions, activities, hormonal profile, circadian rhythm, food choices (which can even switch on and off genes - epigenetics), the bacteria in our guts which affect our immune system and brain influencing how we feel and perceive and react to our world: all these affect our energy requirements, and thus our caloric needs.
We are much more complicated than a simple CICO can account for. For some, it works great. For others, though, it doesn't, because it simply can't account for all those variables.
What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet. Fructose, for instance, doesn't do a great job lowering the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
People look at what happens to them and then try to use their personal experience as a plumbline for everyone else without considering their individual experience is governed by a variety of factors they aren't even aware of, factors which vary from individual to individual. We are all subject to falling into this trap, and we probably all do from time to time. The danger is first to ourselves when we allow ourselves to become judgemental of others instead of understanding, and second, this can become damaging to the other.
This is true, but people get mired in the irrelevant details as I suspect you are doing now.
Pareto these variables: CI, CO, thoughts, emotions, activities, hormones, cricadian rhythm, macros, micros, epigenetics, microbiome, etc.
CI and CO combined amount to >80% of impact.
Hormones 5-10%
The rest ~1%
What variables are you going to prioritize?
I have to disagree, I don't believe I'm getting mired in irrelevant details at all. How are these factors irrelevant?
If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days? You would need to do lab tests and calculations. The best we can do is to approximate.
For instance,
"..a greater intake of sugar calories stimulates more insulin resistance and more fat storage than other types of calories do, even when the total calorie intake remains the same."
The Salt Fix
Author referencing study of which he was a co-author:
Added Fructose: a principle driver of type 2 diabetes mellitus and it's consequences
Mayo Clin. Proc 90 (3): 372-381.
There is much more going on in our bodies than simple CICO can account for.
Do you know what a Pareto analysis is?
As has been discussed many times on these boards, the fact that CO cannot be measured to the decimal point does not invalidate CICO. Knowing an approximate amount of how many calories an individual burns and being able to influence the energy balance by consuming the proper amount of calories in, on a consistent basis, is sufficient. Are there some variables that affect that energy balance? Yes. But those variables are not statistically significant to negate the overwhelming influence of having a balanced CICO relationship. That's what the Pareto comment was directed at. If you were to plot the actual amount of impact on a graph that each of those factors had on weight, the parts you are fixated on account for an extremely small percentage of the total. In other words, don't major in the minors, which is what people often tend to do when they've been unsuccessful at using the basic principle of CICO. They start looking for bogeymen to invalidate CICO, or to suggest it doesn't work for everyone, or that it isn't the "whole story".
19 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
No, I miss being able to speak freely without x,y,z group crying feelings hurt, racism, insert any other grievance...8 -
theresejesu wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »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?
Absolutely - I smell bacon and I eat it all. Same with pizza... it's like blood in the water for sharks. I imagine it would be a lot easier to avoid certain foods if they didn't smell so darned good.
Actually, it seems just the smell itself is enough, no food needed. I'll have to find the reference.
I'd be interested in seeing this.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »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?
Absolutely - I smell bacon and I eat it all. Same with pizza... it's like blood in the water for sharks. I imagine it would be a lot easier to avoid certain foods if they didn't smell so darned good.
Actually, it seems just the smell itself is enough, no food needed. I'll have to find the reference.
I'd be interested in seeing this.
It was rats.4 -
theresejesu 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.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
The CICO method mechanizes our bodies. But our bodies aren't machines, not in such a simplistic sense. Thoughts, emotions, activities, hormonal profile, circadian rhythm, food choices (which can even switch on and off genes - epigenetics), the bacteria in our guts which affect our immune system and brain influencing how we feel and perceive and react to our world: all these affect our energy requirements, and thus our caloric needs.
We are much more complicated than a simple CICO can account for. For some, it works great. For others, though, it doesn't, because it simply can't account for all those variables.
What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet. Fructose, for instance, doesn't do a great job lowering the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
People look at what happens to them and then try to use their personal experience as a plumbline for everyone else without considering their individual experience is governed by a variety of factors they aren't even aware of, factors which vary from individual to individual. We are all subject to falling into this trap, and we probably all do from time to time. The danger is first to ourselves when we allow ourselves to become judgemental of others instead of understanding, and second, this can become damaging to the other.
This is true, but people get mired in the irrelevant details as I suspect you are doing now.
Pareto these variables: CI, CO, thoughts, emotions, activities, hormones, cricadian rhythm, macros, micros, epigenetics, microbiome, etc.
CI and CO combined amount to >80% of impact.
Hormones 5-10%
The rest ~1%
What variables are you going to prioritize?
I have to disagree, I don't believe I'm getting mired in irrelevant details at all. How are these factors irrelevant?
If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days? You would need to do lab tests and calculations. The best we can do is to approximate.
For instance,
"..a greater intake of sugar calories stimulates more insulin resistance and more fat storage than other types of calories do, even when the total calorie intake remains the same."
The Salt Fix
Author referencing study of which he was a co-author:
Added Fructose: a principle driver of type 2 diabetes mellitus and it's consequences
Mayo Clin. Proc 90 (3): 372-381.
There is much more going on in our bodies than simple CICO can account for.
The thing you quoted at the top there was in a type of FLY. That's even further away from humans than rats.9 -
Okay...
*rolls up sleeves*
I've got one that will go down like a lead balloon. MFP will have to introduce a "Hate" reaction just for this.
Smoothies. Shakes. Juices. The whole kerboodle that has turned eating a reasonably healthy diet that includes the recommended servings of fruit and veg each day into an aspirational lifestyle activity, requiring an ultra-expensive 1000W food processor or the frequenting of a "Juice Bar". Duration of activity? Oh, most commonly from January 1st to mid-February. Then people go back to their normal salad-dodging habits.
Just get a grip and learn to eat lettuce leaves with an ordinary dinner all year round without needing them pureed into smithereens and disguised by agave syrup. If you stopped trying to put Kale into everything, you wouldn't even need the agave syrup.
Some people have time constraints that mean they don't have time for sit-down meals, whether that's working two jobs or a work-out plan that incorporates meal-timing. Some people have true clinical grade food aversions and sensory issues that make many vegetables and fruits terribly unpleasant to eat. Some people have teeth that can't handle crunchy apples.
But let's not kid ourselves that any of those are the main drivers behind the success of Nutri-bullet this and Nutri-bullet that.
For the record, I have been a serial fruit and veg refuser myself. But part of being an adult is not glorying in acting like a three-year-old about your dinner, and that, I think, is nearly what annoys me most about the whole craze.
I taught myself to eat and enjoy vegetables so I could set my future children a good example, and it worked. It was difficult at times, but I worked on it. Hey presto, they eat a wide range of veg, even accounting for the stuff they can't handle because of their own texture issues.
However, what annoys me most, the absolute tree-topper to it all, is the amount of poor saps I see here, and elsewhere, who think they can only successfully lose weight/start having a healthy diet if they start drinking fricking smoothies.
The food processor industry must be laughing all the way to the bank.
Here concludes Helium's rant for this afternoon. Tune back in tomorrow for the next instalment.
24 -
I was always told the following which have turned out, from what I have read, not to be true:
- go over 2000 calories a day and you will gain weight each day
- eating within 3 hours of bed turns directly in to fat and are not calories burned.
- less than 4 days a week exercise will make you gain weight despite counting calories.
3 -
theresejesu 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.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
The CICO method mechanizes our bodies. But our bodies aren't machines, not in such a simplistic sense. Thoughts, emotions, activities, hormonal profile, circadian rhythm, food choices (which can even switch on and off genes - epigenetics), the bacteria in our guts which affect our immune system and brain influencing how we feel and perceive and react to our world: all these affect our energy requirements, and thus our caloric needs.
We are much more complicated than a simple CICO can account for. For some, it works great. For others, though, it doesn't, because it simply can't account for all those variables.
What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet. Fructose, for instance, doesn't do a great job lowering the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
People look at what happens to them and then try to use their personal experience as a plumbline for everyone else without considering their individual experience is governed by a variety of factors they aren't even aware of, factors which vary from individual to individual. We are all subject to falling into this trap, and we probably all do from time to time. The danger is first to ourselves when we allow ourselves to become judgemental of others instead of understanding, and second, this can become damaging to the other.
This is true, but people get mired in the irrelevant details as I suspect you are doing now.
Pareto these variables: CI, CO, thoughts, emotions, activities, hormones, cricadian rhythm, macros, micros, epigenetics, microbiome, etc.
CI and CO combined amount to >80% of impact.
Hormones 5-10%
The rest ~1%
What variables are you going to prioritize?
I have to disagree, I don't believe I'm getting mired in irrelevant details at all. How are these factors irrelevant?
If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days? You would need to do lab tests and calculations. The best we can do is to approximate.
For instance,
"..a greater intake of sugar calories stimulates more insulin resistance and more fat storage than other types of calories do, even when the total calorie intake remains the same."
The Salt Fix
Author referencing study of which he was a co-author:
Added Fructose: a principle driver of type 2 diabetes mellitus and it's consequences
Mayo Clin. Proc 90 (3): 372-381.
There is much more going on in our bodies than simple CICO can account for.[/quot
Your quote mentions "more fat storage". The key question is how much more? 100%? 50%? 1%? .5%? you get the idea. "More" is useless and many studies like this show results way on the low end, but then get reported as if the difference is huge. (disclaimer: I did not look at the details of the quoted study specifically)3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
For context, I'm 38. As a teenager, I had several friends who tried to kill themselves. Only one of them seemed to be related to social issues (that I know of), but the idea that children/teenagers are weaker today or point to some kind of "snowflaking" trend doesn't really resonate with me. And my peers and I didn't even have to worry about social media until we were older. It seems like young people today deal with a peer environment that is, in some ways, much more immersive and 24/7 than the ones I had to deal with when I was younger.
I'm 55.
I did try to kill myself.
It had more to do with a horrible home situation than anything I experienced socially. I'd reached a breaking point that had been simmering for years.
Sorry to hear about that, I hope things are better now.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
There was never a time in the US when anybody could say what they wanted. People who are nostalgic for the days before "political correctness" may not specifically be white men who would routinely say racist or sexist things, but they're certainly forgetting (or don't know) that black men have been lynched for things they have said and abolitionists and advocates for birth control have gone to jail for certain types of speech. It's nostalgia for a very specific set of speech and it disregards the fact that not everyone had this freedom to say "whatever" in the past.29 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
There was never a time in the US when anybody could say what they wanted. People who are nostalgic for the days before "political correctness" may not specifically be white men who would routinely say racist or sexist things, but they're certainly forgetting (or don't know) that black men have been lynched for things they have said and abolitionists and advocates for birth control have gone to jail for certain types of speech. It's nostalgia for a very specific set of speech and it disregards the fact that not everyone had this freedom to say "whatever" in the past.
Exactly. Whoever is in power - whether it be a boss, a government, a police officer, a larger person - s/he gets to decide what is okay to say. I'm very careful what I say in certain situations. In the U.S. you don't know who is carrying a gun and it becomes a matter of personal safety when around strangers. There is a lot of crazy out there. My best tactic is avoidance of any conversation with most people.15 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Okay...
*rolls up sleeves*
I've got one that will go down like a lead balloon. MFP will have to introduce a "Hate" reaction just for this.
I don't totally agree, but I don't totally disagree. (So no hate from me! And I sometimes enjoy a smoothie.)Smoothies. Shakes. Juices. The whole kerboodle that has turned eating a reasonably healthy diet that includes the recommended servings of fruit and veg each day into an aspirational lifestyle activity, requiring an ultra-expensive 1000W food processor or the frequenting of a "Juice Bar". Duration of activity? Oh, most commonly from January 1st to mid-February. Then people go back to their normal salad-dodging habits.
Where I disagree is that while people DO often buy expensive equipment to do this, you don't need anything more than a standard blender for a smoothie or, of course, shake), and of course there are reasons to have nice blenders or food processors that don't require that one make smoothies with them.
I do agree that just consuming vegetables (including greens) with your meal is a good thing, but one doesn't have to be opposed to that to enjoy an occasional smoothie as a snack or breakfast. (Shakes I don't think of as about vegetables, particularly, but more about protein power or post workout or some such, which I also don't think it necessary, but if one likes them why not.)Just get a grip and learn to eat lettuce leaves with an ordinary dinner all year round without needing them pureed into smithereens and disguised by agave syrup. If you stopped trying to put Kale into everything, you wouldn't even need the agave syrup.
I've never owned or tasted agave syrup, and put kale in smoothies when I make them about 50% of the time. I don't find that it ruins the taste -- I like the taste of kale fine, it's the texture that bothers me in a salad and I'm too lazy to massage it. My reasoning is that I prefer spinach in a salad, so why waste it in a smoothie, and I get lots of kale in my CSA box and although I cook it too, if I make a smoothie it works there too.
If I don't have a smoothie (which is mostly an occasional summer thing for me), I have vegetables in my breakfast anyway. Kale also goes well in an omelet, with some asparagus, mushrooms, and feta, for example.However, what annoys me most, the absolute tree-topper to it all, is the amount of poor saps I see here, and elsewhere, who think they can only successfully lose weight/start having a healthy diet if they start drinking fricking smoothies.
Now, this, this, I 100% agree with, although I don't see that so much with smoothies (I do think smoothies are more about people finding that they taste good and often that people want to try eating breakfast -- which I'd agree is not necessary -- and don't feel like eating in the morning or, as you mentioned, are on the run). I mostly notice how popular green smoothies are because I see people consuming them on the L, or today in the elevator in my office building.
But the green smoothie cleanse detox nonsense, blah, ugh. And I HAVE asked people why and gotten basically the admission that it's the only way they can imagine consuming veg (and they assume people not doing a smoothie cleanse don't consume veg), so like I said, I get where you are coming from to some degree, definitely.
But I still enjoy an occasional smoothie breakfast and making up new combinations.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
There was never a time in the US when anybody could say what they wanted. People who are nostalgic for the days before "political correctness" may not specifically be white men who would routinely say racist or sexist things, but they're certainly forgetting (or don't know) that black men have been lynched for things they have said and abolitionists and advocates for birth control have gone to jail for certain types of speech. It's nostalgia for a very specific set of speech and it disregards the fact that not everyone had this freedom to say "whatever" in the past.
The biggest problem that I see with 'political correctness' is that everything has devolved into the interpretation of what the listener thinks about ('about' being the key word in this diatribe) what was said and has nothing based on the actual meaning of what was said or the context in which it was said. To be specific, I have a co-worker who had a harassment complaint filed against him because he engaged in light-hearted banter during an elevator ride. He did not make sexual comments, disparage the woman or mock her in any way, but she didn't like him and used the encounter as a means of 'getting him'. He tried to fight the complaint, but guess what - because of the way that the rules have been written and interpreted by the EEOC, there was nothing that he could do and now he has a permanent black mark in his employment record.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
There was never a time in the US when anybody could say what they wanted. People who are nostalgic for the days before "political correctness" may not specifically be white men who would routinely say racist or sexist things, but they're certainly forgetting (or don't know) that black men have been lynched for things they have said and abolitionists and advocates for birth control have gone to jail for certain types of speech. It's nostalgia for a very specific set of speech and it disregards the fact that not everyone had this freedom to say "whatever" in the past.
The biggest problem that I see with 'political correctness' is that everything has devolved into the interpretation of what the listener thinks about ('about' being the key word in this diatribe) what was said and has nothing based on the actual meaning of what was said or the context in which it was said. To be specific, I have a co-worker who had a harassment complaint filed against him because he engaged in light-hearted banter during an elevator ride. He did not make sexual comments, disparage the woman or mock her in any way, but she didn't like him and used the encounter as a means of 'getting him'. He tried to fight the complaint, but guess what - because of the way that the rules have been written and interpreted by the EEOC, there was nothing that he could do and now he has a permanent black mark in his employment record.
I completely agree that we should focus on the actual meaning of what is said and the context. I also think that speakers should do a reasonable amount of thinking about the context of what they're saying (not directed at your co-worker). There are things I can say that would seem perfectly innocent in the light of 2017, but may be interpreted differently due to, say, America's complex racial history. If I know that, I can think about the context of what I'm saying and maybe find a different way to express myself.10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions