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.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Replies
-
NotEmphatic wrote: »I have followed the discussions for many months now.
There are many [people of the religious and caveman-like mindset who scream CICO the loudest.
Who are so quick to Woo!! and say...Nah, you are wrong...it's all and totally about what you cram in your facehole.
This thinking is what has stymied any sort of genuine, academic and scientific enquiry for as long as we have been around.
The so-called 'helpers' on this forum may be causing more harm than good.
A person can't lose weight and they get the CICO mantra spat out at them.
My statins may cause muscle pain, tremors and perhaps even long-term liver damage.
We do not know yet.
But, I do know a stroke will kill me even at a blessed BMI value.
I will keep my faith in proven western pharmocology.
Cheers.
I am utterly confused at what point you are trying to make in this post. Totally baffling.
Statins are good? CICO bad?
Okay, what does that have to do with the thread?
BTW, I have, well, had, high cholesterol. I'm appalled you think Dr. Fung is your going to be lord and dietary savior when it comes to what you need to "put in your mouth". And I don't need to take statins.
PS... I hope you're exercising. I never see the Fung disciples who bang on about the miracle cure of keto for cholesterol issues talk about the proven link exercise has in reducing cholesterol.7 -
Leaky gut is legit! People who dont believe it are ignorant or not educated enough to understand the impact our gut flora has on our overall health.24
-
gpokerlund wrote: »Leaky gut is legit! People who dont believe it are ignorant or not educated enough to understand the impact our gut flora has on our overall health.
Please provide evidence.5 -
gpokerlund wrote: »Leaky gut is legit! People who dont believe it are ignorant or not educated enough to understand the impact our gut flora has on our overall health.
I'm pretty sure it's possible to believe that gut flora are important to our health, while simultaneously believing that the "leaky gut" diagnosis has a poor scientific basis. Because, y'know, I do believe both.
The science around gut microbiome is still very, very young, but it looks as if it will be insight-producing.
5 -
Perhaps my phrasing was confusing.
I did read many pages of this thread until I had to log off in despair.
The OP was roundly condemned for asking about holistic and complimentary approaches.
She was heckled by the peanut gallery and I found it distasteful in the extreme.
The OP was embarking on a quest for knowledge and got slammed by the *kitten*-Eyed CICO fundamentalists.
I won't post links because all of us can google sufficiently well.
I am intrigued by the new studies on placebo science - why placebos work...the power of the mind over the mechanical and biological human body.
Are you all going to Super Woo!! this?
Many eminent and sceptical scientists are looking into this wonderful and confusing field.
"There are more things, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your Philosophy..."
(Apologies to the Bard).
Best Wishes to All.)24 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Perhaps my phrasing was confusing.
I did read many pages of this thread until I had to log off in despair.
The OP was roundly condemned for asking about holistic and complimentary approaches.
She was heckled by the peanut gallery and I found it distasteful in the extreme.
The OP was embarking on a quest for knowledge and got slammed by the *kitten*-Eyed CICO fundamentalists.
I won't post links because all of us can google sufficiently well.
I am intrigued by the new studies on placebo science - why placebos work...the power of the mind over the mechanical and biological human body.
Are you all going to Super Woo!! this?
Many eminent and sceptical scientists are looking into this wonderful and confusing field.
"There are more things, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your Philosophy..."
(Apologies to the Bard).
Best Wishes to All.)
"you can google it" is a copout.
Here's a few things you can google:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
http://paleoseti.com/
http://timecube.2enp.com/
http://www.subterraneanbases.com/third-reich-maps-inner-earth/11 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Perhaps my phrasing was confusing.
I did read many pages of this thread until I had to log off in despair.
The OP was roundly condemned for asking about holistic and complimentary approaches.
She was heckled by the peanut gallery and I found it distasteful in the extreme.
The OP was embarking on a quest for knowledge and got slammed by the *kitten*-Eyed CICO fundamentalists.
I won't post links because all of us can google sufficiently well.
I am intrigued by the new studies on placebo science - why placebos work...the power of the mind over the mechanical and biological human body.
Are you all going to Super Woo!! this?
Many eminent and sceptical scientists are looking into this wonderful and confusing field.
"There are more things, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your Philosophy..."
(Apologies to the Bard).
Best Wishes to All.)
I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.13 -
I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!20 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!
CICO is immutable. There is no argument against it. There is no study that shows someone eating less than they burn and gaining weight nor any study that shows someone eating more than they burn and losing weight. But it just sounds like you're trolling at this point, because no one is this far gone from reality.10 -
gpokerlund wrote: »Leaky gut is legit! People who dont believe it are ignorant or not educated enough to understand the impact our gut flora has on our overall health.
I'm pretty sure it's possible to believe that gut flora are important to our health, while simultaneously believing that the "leaky gut" diagnosis has a poor scientific basis. Because, y'know, I do believe both.
The science around gut microbiome is still very, very young, but it looks as if it will be insight-producing.
Yes, all of this.
Leaky gut isn't about gut flora. It's the idea that there's something wrong with the lining of the intestines so that food particles leak out and cause an autoimmune response.9 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »The OP was roundly condemned for asking about holistic and complimentary approaches. She was heckled by the peanut gallery and I found it distasteful in the extreme.
No, this is not true. OP asked if she was being scammed (or taught nonsense) at a school for "holistic medicine" she was attending. In addition to what she was being taught there were several other red flags, like the course books not being available to students. People answered her question. She was not slammed and she asked for people's opinions.The OP was embarking on a quest for knowledge and got slammed by the *kitten*-Eyed CICO fundamentalists.
Again, the subject of the thread was never even CICO. It is baffling why you think it is unless you are in the wrong thread.I am intrigued by the new studies on placebo science - why placebos work...the power of the mind over the mechanical and biological human body. Are you all going to Super Woo!! this?
I doubt it, not for this reason, as the placebo and nocebo effects are real. Doesn't make it ethical to pretend to diagnose a fake problem and give a "treatment" that has no actual effect because someone might think it works and feel better (although that could happen).9 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Perhaps my phrasing was confusing.
I did read many pages of this thread until I had to log off in despair.
The OP was roundly condemned for asking about holistic and complimentary approaches.
She was heckled by the peanut gallery and I found it distasteful in the extreme.
The OP was embarking on a quest for knowledge and got slammed by the *kitten*-Eyed CICO fundamentalists.
I won't post links because all of us can google sufficiently well.
I am intrigued by the new studies on placebo science - why placebos work...the power of the mind over the mechanical and biological human body.
Are you all going to Super Woo!! this?
Many eminent and sceptical scientists are looking into this wonderful and confusing field.
"There are more things, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your Philosophy..."
(Apologies to the Bard).
Best Wishes to All.)
Actually, literally, OP asked if she was being scammed by her holistic nutrition training program. Many people here said "yes". And much discussion ensued.
Were some of us mean? I don't know. I do try not to be, honestly. You, however, are calling a broad swath of people a name that needs to be censored by the kitten filter, among other sweeping remarks.
Letting unscientific nonsense stand unchallenged is not kindness, is not support. At best, it's careless; at worst, it's cruel.
Placebo effect is a scientific concept. The "why" or "how" of it continues to be researched, but the "what" has been known for a long time. Among other things, it's a key reason double-blind studies are the gold standard. I wouldn't "woo" that. If you say we know how to harness placebo effect intentionally, though, or that we should tolerate unscientific nonsense because placebo effect may let it work . . . I'm going to need some sound evidence.
As an irrelevant aside, I'm amused that, as of that scene, Horatio is about to be the last man standing after others (including Hamlet, who dissed Horatio's philosophy) are poisoned and die; and that autocorrect tried to change "holistic" to "nihilistic".
Edited: typo9 -
russelljam08 wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!
CICO is immutable. There is no argument against it. There is no study that shows someone eating less than they burn and gaining weight nor any study that shows someone eating more than they burn and losing weight. But it just sounds like you're trolling at this point, because no one is this far gone from reality.
The human endocrine system is way too complex for CICO to be the final determinant of the weight loss question.
In a perfect human machine CICO is correct - if it only has one energy variable.
I have lots of variables...so do you.
Science has progressed very well without your simplistic, flat-earth-CICO contribution.
Support those who need more than what you offer as 'advice'.
Or, stop being a hindrance to honest and curious enquiry.
Please.21 -
Now...I've had enough.
How about..."Would you post a selfie with the person above you"?
Of course you would.
14 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!
CICO is immutable. There is no argument against it. There is no study that shows someone eating less than they burn and gaining weight nor any study that shows someone eating more than they burn and losing weight. But it just sounds like you're trolling at this point, because no one is this far gone from reality.
The human endocrine system is way too complex for CICO to be the final determinant of the weight loss question.
In a perfect human machine CICO is correct - if it only has one energy variable.
I have lots of variables...so do you.
Science has progressed very well without your simplistic, flat-earth-CICO contribution.
Support those who need more than what you offer as 'advice'.
Or, stop being a hindrance to honest and curious enquiry.
Please.
Present the evidence.
Still waiting for these magical humans who can bend space and time to create and destroy energy.
Again present the evidence.
Everything is "variable", it doesn't negate the energy in and energy out balance that ALWAYS occurs
Again, endocrine system, hormones etc do not create energy from nothing, if it did humans would be harvested or the hormones would be produced in a lab to power the world
It is ok to admit you ate too much
Saying CICO isn't valid doesn't absolve you of accountability, though it is a "convenient" crutch10 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Now...I've had enough.
How about..."Would you post a selfie with the person above you"?
Of course you would.
A debate in the debate section ought to stop because you're over it? If you don't want to debate, don't.14 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!
1. Did you read the OP? She specifically said she was afraid the school she is attending is a scam, and asked why holistic stuff isn't supported here. She also posted this in the Debate thread. If she didn't want opinions and arguments, why would she have posted here and asked for our opinions?
2. The pursuit of knowledge is much more useful if you are aware of how to vet where you are getting your info from. I don't think anyone here is against the OP, you, or anyone else pursuing knowledge, we are just opining on where it's best to learn about stuff from. What's wrong with that?
3. Still not getting why you keep bringing up CICO. This thread is not about weightloss.8 -
gpokerlund wrote: »Leaky gut is legit! People who dont believe it are ignorant or not educated enough to understand the impact our gut flora has on our overall health.
Ironic post is ironic.
10 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!
CICO is immutable. There is no argument against it. There is no study that shows someone eating less than they burn and gaining weight nor any study that shows someone eating more than they burn and losing weight. But it just sounds like you're trolling at this point, because no one is this far gone from reality.
The human endocrine system is way too complex for CICO to be the final determinant of the weight loss question.
In a perfect human machine CICO is correct - if it only has one energy variable.
I have lots of variables...so do you.
Science has progressed very well without your simplistic, flat-earth-CICO contribution.
Support those who need more than what you offer as 'advice'.
Or, stop being a hindrance to honest and curious enquiry.
Please.
The endocrine system does Not deactivate the laws of physics.8 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!
Nobody (at least before) is "screaming". I have read the entire thread and the OP's question was answered. The quest for knowlege takes many different paths. I hope she asked the right questions at her school. I'd have serious doubts too. An education costs money and that money needs to go to the best use.6 -
russelljam08 wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!
CICO is immutable. There is no argument against it. There is no study that shows someone eating less than they burn and gaining weight nor any study that shows someone eating more than they burn and losing weight. But it just sounds like you're trolling at this point, because no one is this far gone from reality.
The human endocrine system is way too complex for CICO to be the final determinant of the weight loss question.
In a perfect human machine CICO is correct - if it only has one energy variable.
I have lots of variables...so do you.
Science has progressed very well without your simplistic, flat-earth-CICO contribution.
Support those who need more than what you offer as 'advice'.
Or, stop being a hindrance to honest and curious enquiry.
Please.
Present the evidence.
Still waiting for these magical humans who can bend space and time to create and destroy energy.
Again present the evidence.
Everything is "variable", it doesn't negate the energy in and energy out balance that ALWAYS occurs
Again, endocrine system, hormones etc do not create energy from nothing, if it did humans would be harvested or the hormones would be produced in a lab to power the world
It is ok to admit you ate too much
Saying CICO isn't valid doesn't absolve you of accountability, though it is a "convenient" crutch
Hi,
There are too many good people on this forum who struggle.
You present a dogmatic, unhelpful, catch-all answer and demand evidence.
My N+1 is this:
Excess cholestorol...naturally occurring...statins must be taken...resulting muscle weakness prevents exercise...liver overworks to negate chemicals...kidneys overwork as well.
Human pysiology does not conform to machine-like inputs.
We are way too complex.
CICO is not my sole answer.
You are negative and lack empathy.
And...not a scientist but as religiously dogmatic as the Mormons.
Your turn.
Doh.23 -
Healthy people get ill with un-explained chronic diseases.
Lung cancer for non-smokers...and so on.
You are a lazy person who says "CICO, CICO, CICO...you eat too much...your fault"
This is faddish dogma that will be proven in time.
Thousands of scientists do go work but you only want one solution and bugger any one else.20 -
edit: Do Good Work. And will dismiss the shrill one-answer for all shouty people.17
-
stevencloser wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!
CICO is immutable. There is no argument against it. There is no study that shows someone eating less than they burn and gaining weight nor any study that shows someone eating more than they burn and losing weight. But it just sounds like you're trolling at this point, because no one is this far gone from reality.
The human endocrine system is way too complex for CICO to be the final determinant of the weight loss question.
In a perfect human machine CICO is correct - if it only has one energy variable.
I have lots of variables...so do you.
Science has progressed very well without your simplistic, flat-earth-CICO contribution.
Support those who need more than what you offer as 'advice'.
Or, stop being a hindrance to honest and curious enquiry.
Please.
The endocrine system does Not deactivate the laws of physics.
True. CICO in reference to humans falls under Biology instead of Physics.14 -
Could you please stop derailing this thread? It's about holistic nutrition and whether the OP is being taught bunkus, nothing to do with weight loss, CICO or mean people.10
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »NotEmphatic wrote: »I'm confused on how being skeptical of holistic practitioners = CICO fundamentalists. They are two unrelated concepts.
My argument is about two things:
The pursuit of knowledge and the inhibitors on this forum of those who try to learn.
I don't support zealots, or snake oil merchants and I don't support shouty people.
The OP may start on one path towards knowledge and may realise that she goes on to study real science.
Good and great!
I bet the ancient CICO-style, fixed opinion ancient ones were the same ones who offered hemlock to Socrates and screamed at Galileo to put downed his god-less telescope!
CICO is immutable. There is no argument against it. There is no study that shows someone eating less than they burn and gaining weight nor any study that shows someone eating more than they burn and losing weight. But it just sounds like you're trolling at this point, because no one is this far gone from reality.
The human endocrine system is way too complex for CICO to be the final determinant of the weight loss question.
In a perfect human machine CICO is correct - if it only has one energy variable.
I have lots of variables...so do you.
Science has progressed very well without your simplistic, flat-earth-CICO contribution.
Support those who need more than what you offer as 'advice'.
Or, stop being a hindrance to honest and curious enquiry.
Please.
The endocrine system does Not deactivate the laws of physics.
True. CICO in reference to humans falls under Biology instead of Physics.
13 -
Dad and I talked about the advances in weather prediction since we were kids. The game changer was computers which allow us to run countless calculations in real time. You could say that weather is merely applied maths.7
-
gpokerlund wrote: »Leaky gut is legit! People who dont believe it are ignorant or not educated enough to understand the impact our gut flora has on our overall health.
Disbelief in leaky gut doesn't mean one can't believe there's some validity to the new insights into the impact of gut flora.
I'm afraid you're on the wrong foot in this proposition, not the rest of us, because it's clear just by saying it that you don't know what leaky gut is supposed to be.3 -
Belief in CICO (which isn't really a belief, it's just a mathematical equation) is not the same as not accepting there are things that influence CO, such as medical conditions. That is absolutely, 100% accepted by the mean people you're lambasting.
You know what's not helpful? Believing maintaining a healthy weight is a function of anything other than CICO. "Oh your endocrine system is messed up, best you just stay fat because CICO isn't true and doesn't apply to sick people". I mean really?
Treatment of medical conditions is another issue entirely and I have absolutely not the faintest idea why you are conflating the two. Maintaining an overall healthy diet and healthy weight by application of understanding a mathematical equation is not the same as saying maths will cure what ails you. I don't get where your thought pattern is extracting this narrative from.8 -
NotEmphatic wrote: »Healthy people get ill with un-explained chronic diseases.
Lung cancer for non-smokers...and so on.
You are a lazy person who says "CICO, CICO, CICO...you eat too much...your fault"
This is faddish dogma that will be proven in time.
Thousands of scientists do go work but you only want one solution and bugger any one else.
No one says that lung cancer in non smokers should be treated with CICO. That would be a fake, "holistic" approach, even, as the issue is not weight loss.
Surely you don't think that non smokers with lung cancer should be treated other than with proper medical means?
Also, I think you don't understand what CICO means, but since that is NOT the topic of this thread maybe we should start a new one for whatever you are talking about here and not derail this one?
Please? Heck, I'll even do it.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions