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.
Jack Lalanne's Advice
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it?
To be fair, it actually seems as if his advice was quite a bit more than just that list -- more restrictive, but also not so focused on sugar. I quoted his anti dietary fat diatribe above.If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I very strongly disagree with the notion that just cutting down on sweets would make a difference to the weight of most obese people. The sources of calories in our society are so pervasive and varied. True, it would cut calories for those who consumed them, but would those calories quickly be replaced if the person did not make some other changes (awareness of calories -- which doesn't mean counting them -- or some way of not mindlessly eating or overdoing snacky things (which are hardly only sugary things in the US), just learning to have a controlled diet and what you find satiating if satiety is the issue or how to control hedonic eating)? Given how many people talk about non sweet foods -- overdoing bread, chips, fast food, etc., as well as the specific kinds of things I mentioned above, I think the idea that it must just be about sugar is hard to justify (and Lalanne didn't actually believe that, I recommend looking at the posts where I and others gave more information about what his diet ideas were).
In fact, it seems to me that a lot of people overeat just because tasty food is so convenient, and if it were non sugary tasty food in the same situations, they still would (unless they learned to be more mindful about it). Others overeat because they are hedonic eaters or stress/emotional eaters. Others just because they enjoy food (and not just sugary foods) and can. (I first gained weight due to a combination of lowered activity and a job and lifestyle that let me go to lots of good restaurants. I didn't usually get dessert, but a salad plus entree and maybe some bread on the table, but even if you are ordering things like cassoulet and not a burger and fries, add up FAST when they are restaurant items (and at the time I normally had wine too). And then I might order Indian (or another favorite was salmon kebobs with pita and baba ganoush) to the office when working late (dinners when staying past 7 or 8 were paid for and I commonly worked later than that) -- from a restaurant those things, again, are HIGH cal, even though they aren't sugary.) I originally lost weight when I started cooking most meals at home and thought that was sufficient, but I managed to regain even doing that, when I got more mindless again and started using food for self-comfort again.
Even for those who mostly just have issues with sugary things and don't mindlessly get excess cals in other ways, is it because they don't have a clue those have high cals or that they are overdoing it? I seriously, seriously doubt it. I think many think it's a choice between being fat (and eating what they want) or giving up sweets completely, and they'd rather be fat (at least unless something bad happens as a result). Others have a long history of trying to cut out sweets (or other foods, of course), failing, feeling guilty, etc. Even in these cases I don't think "maybe you should cut out sweets" is actually helpful (as opposed to a focus on building a calorie-appropriate, nutritious diet, which might be, although more might be needed).
Some of you seem to think there's this big group of people who have no idea that cake has lots of calories and that cutting back on cake is obvious if you are trying to lose and happen to eat a whole lot of cake, and I find that puzzling. That people don't know that a diet based on cake isn't great or that cake is quite caloric seems to me to be about the least likely thing to be contributing to the obesity rate. If I told someone that overeating cake is not a good idea or it's high in calories, I'd rather expect a sarcastic "you think?" Because everyone knows. They might not be conscious of how much they consume, but then the same is likely true of a whole bunch of other foods too, so why single out the cake?
Might people be overeating by 100+ calories a day most days and including in their diet very often a 100 cal coffee, 250 cal dessert of some sort, and a bunch of calories that perhaps are kind of mindless like an 800 cal lunch from a fast food place a couple times a week, too liberal a hand with the oil when cooking, maybe twice the standard serving size of the pasta cooked or meat consumed (especially when it's higher fat), or taking a casual handful of nuts (or M&Ms) when walking by a co-workers desk? And could they do all this without even thinking they eat much? IMO, that kind of thing is why some honesty about overall habits are going to be more important than deciding you can never eat a cookie. The person I just described CAN include cookies in her or his diet, if the overall eating becomes more planned and mindful (and it could even without having to log). That's the kind of thing I think can be really valuable to understand.
Deciding to do the Lalanne thing and cut out added sugar (other than juice and honey, which are free sugars according to WHO) and fatty foods and eating a rigid diet such as that he described might work for some, but it is hardly the only approach and would not, IMO, result in a real understanding and for many would not be sustainable.
This is worthy of an awesome, if only I had a way to grant one!
You put so much time and thought into your deliberate and pragmatic posts; asking somewhat provocative questions, and rarely do you get a response to those questions. Maybe the people you are challenging think you are asking questions rhetorically... but I don't think that's your intent.7 -
goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it? If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I do agree with Lemurcat12 that regardless his advice would be improved by talking about nutrition in general (what should people eat instead of those sweets?) and with everyone else that if he were talking about CICO instead of just sweets he'd get bigger praise from me.
You're grasping at straws hypothesizing at this point because of your personal experience.
BTW, I'm saying the same thing as Lemurcat about generalizing advice. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it?
To be fair, it actually seems as if his advice was quite a bit more than just that list -- more restrictive, but also not so focused on sugar. I quoted his anti dietary fat diatribe above.If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I very strongly disagree with the notion that just cutting down on sweets would make a difference to the weight of most obese people. The sources of calories in our society are so pervasive and varied. True, it would cut calories for those who consumed them, but would those calories quickly be replaced if the person did not make some other changes (awareness of calories -- which doesn't mean counting them -- or some way of not mindlessly eating or overdoing snacky things (which are hardly only sugary things in the US), just learning to have a controlled diet and what you find satiating if satiety is the issue or how to control hedonic eating)? Given how many people talk about non sweet foods -- overdoing bread, chips, fast food, etc., as well as the specific kinds of things I mentioned above, I think the idea that it must just be about sugar is hard to justify (and Lalanne didn't actually believe that, I recommend looking at the posts where I and others gave more information about what his diet ideas were).
In fact, it seems to me that a lot of people overeat just because tasty food is so convenient, and if it were non sugary tasty food in the same situations, they still would (unless they learned to be more mindful about it). Others overeat because they are hedonic eaters or stress/emotional eaters. Others just because they enjoy food (and not just sugary foods) and can. (I first gained weight due to a combination of lowered activity and a job and lifestyle that let me go to lots of good restaurants. I didn't usually get dessert, but a salad plus entree and maybe some bread on the table, but even if you are ordering things like cassoulet and not a burger and fries, add up FAST when they are restaurant items (and at the time I normally had wine too). And then I might order Indian (or another favorite was salmon kebobs with pita and baba ganoush) to the office when working late (dinners when staying past 7 or 8 were paid for and I commonly worked later than that) -- from a restaurant those things, again, are HIGH cal, even though they aren't sugary.) I originally lost weight when I started cooking most meals at home and thought that was sufficient, but I managed to regain even doing that, when I got more mindless again and started using food for self-comfort again.
Even for those who mostly just have issues with sugary things and don't mindlessly get excess cals in other ways, is it because they don't have a clue those have high cals or that they are overdoing it? I seriously, seriously doubt it. I think many think it's a choice between being fat (and eating what they want) or giving up sweets completely, and they'd rather be fat (at least unless something bad happens as a result). Others have a long history of trying to cut out sweets (or other foods, of course), failing, feeling guilty, etc. Even in these cases I don't think "maybe you should cut out sweets" is actually helpful (as opposed to a focus on building a calorie-appropriate, nutritious diet, which might be, although more might be needed).
Some of you seem to think there's this big group of people who have no idea that cake has lots of calories and that cutting back on cake is obvious if you are trying to lose and happen to eat a whole lot of cake, and I find that puzzling. That people don't know that a diet based on cake isn't great or that cake is quite caloric seems to me to be about the least likely thing to be contributing to the obesity rate. If I told someone that overeating cake is not a good idea or it's high in calories, I'd rather expect a sarcastic "you think?" Because everyone knows. They might not be conscious of how much they consume, but then the same is likely true of a whole bunch of other foods too, so why single out the cake?
Might people be overeating by 100+ calories a day most days and including in their diet very often a 100 cal coffee, 250 cal dessert of some sort, and a bunch of calories that perhaps are kind of mindless like an 800 cal lunch from a fast food place a couple times a week, too liberal a hand with the oil when cooking, maybe twice the standard serving size of the pasta cooked or meat consumed (especially when it's higher fat), or taking a casual handful of nuts (or M&Ms) when walking by a co-workers desk? And could they do all this without even thinking they eat much? IMO, that kind of thing is why some honesty about overall habits are going to be more important than deciding you can never eat a cookie. The person I just described CAN include cookies in her or his diet, if the overall eating becomes more planned and mindful (and it could even without having to log). That's the kind of thing I think can be really valuable to understand.
Deciding to do the Lalanne thing and cut out added sugar (other than juice and honey, which are free sugars according to WHO) and fatty foods and eating a rigid diet such as that he described might work for some, but it is hardly the only approach and would not, IMO, result in a real understanding and for many would not be sustainable.
This is worthy of an awesome, if only I had a way to grant one!
You put so much time and thought into your deliberate and pragmatic posts; asking somewhat provocative questions, and rarely do you get a response to those questions. Maybe the people you are challenging think you are asking questions rhetorically... but I don't think that's your intent.
^This. I should just start quoting Lemurcat and letting her speak for me, because we pretty much agree on everything.5 -
LOL, and back then you could smoke anywhere too.1
-
Ah the corporate golden years. Several whiskies with lunch and back to the office to sexually harass the secretary for the rest of the day.6
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it? If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I do agree with Lemurcat12 that regardless his advice would be improved by talking about nutrition in general (what should people eat instead of those sweets?) and with everyone else that if he were talking about CICO instead of just sweets he'd get bigger praise from me.
You're grasping at straws hypothesizing at this point because of your personal experience.
BTW, I'm saying the same thing as Lemurcat about generalizing advice. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.
For the person who's wooing me, can you please tell me specifically what you disagree with me about? I'm not normally bothered by woos at all, but it's clear to me that maybe my cognitive difficulties are making it hard for me to get my point across in this thread and I must not be making myself clear if I don't appear to be saying the same things as lemurcat.
Because I'm trying to.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it?
To be fair, it actually seems as if his advice was quite a bit more than just that list -- more restrictive, but also not so focused on sugar. I quoted his anti dietary fat diatribe above.If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I very strongly disagree with the notion that just cutting down on sweets would make a difference to the weight of most obese people. The sources of calories in our society are so pervasive and varied. True, it would cut calories for those who consumed them, but would those calories quickly be replaced if the person did not make some other changes (awareness of calories -- which doesn't mean counting them -- or some way of not mindlessly eating or overdoing snacky things (which are hardly only sugary things in the US), just learning to have a controlled diet and what you find satiating if satiety is the issue or how to control hedonic eating)? Given how many people talk about non sweet foods -- overdoing bread, chips, fast food, etc., as well as the specific kinds of things I mentioned above, I think the idea that it must just be about sugar is hard to justify (and Lalanne didn't actually believe that, I recommend looking at the posts where I and others gave more information about what his diet ideas were).
In fact, it seems to me that a lot of people overeat just because tasty food is so convenient, and if it were non sugary tasty food in the same situations, they still would (unless they learned to be more mindful about it). Others overeat because they are hedonic eaters or stress/emotional eaters. Others just because they enjoy food (and not just sugary foods) and can. (I first gained weight due to a combination of lowered activity and a job and lifestyle that let me go to lots of good restaurants. I didn't usually get dessert, but a salad plus entree and maybe some bread on the table, but even if you are ordering things like cassoulet and not a burger and fries, add up FAST when they are restaurant items (and at the time I normally had wine too). And then I might order Indian (or another favorite was salmon kebobs with pita and baba ganoush) to the office when working late (dinners when staying past 7 or 8 were paid for and I commonly worked later than that) -- from a restaurant those things, again, are HIGH cal, even though they aren't sugary.) I originally lost weight when I started cooking most meals at home and thought that was sufficient, but I managed to regain even doing that, when I got more mindless again and started using food for self-comfort again.
Even for those who mostly just have issues with sugary things and don't mindlessly get excess cals in other ways, is it because they don't have a clue those have high cals or that they are overdoing it? I seriously, seriously doubt it. I think many think it's a choice between being fat (and eating what they want) or giving up sweets completely, and they'd rather be fat (at least unless something bad happens as a result). Others have a long history of trying to cut out sweets (or other foods, of course), failing, feeling guilty, etc. Even in these cases I don't think "maybe you should cut out sweets" is actually helpful (as opposed to a focus on building a calorie-appropriate, nutritious diet, which might be, although more might be needed).
Some of you seem to think there's this big group of people who have no idea that cake has lots of calories and that cutting back on cake is obvious if you are trying to lose and happen to eat a whole lot of cake, and I find that puzzling. That people don't know that a diet based on cake isn't great or that cake is quite caloric seems to me to be about the least likely thing to be contributing to the obesity rate. If I told someone that overeating cake is not a good idea or it's high in calories, I'd rather expect a sarcastic "you think?" Because everyone knows. They might not be conscious of how much they consume, but then the same is likely true of a whole bunch of other foods too, so why single out the cake?
Might people be overeating by 100+ calories a day most days and including in their diet very often a 100 cal coffee, 250 cal dessert of some sort, and a bunch of calories that perhaps are kind of mindless like an 800 cal lunch from a fast food place a couple times a week, too liberal a hand with the oil when cooking, maybe twice the standard serving size of the pasta cooked or meat consumed (especially when it's higher fat), or taking a casual handful of nuts (or M&Ms) when walking by a co-workers desk? And could they do all this without even thinking they eat much? IMO, that kind of thing is why some honesty about overall habits are going to be more important than deciding you can never eat a cookie. The person I just described CAN include cookies in her or his diet, if the overall eating becomes more planned and mindful (and it could even without having to log). That's the kind of thing I think can be really valuable to understand.
Deciding to do the Lalanne thing and cut out added sugar (other than juice and honey, which are free sugars according to WHO) and fatty foods and eating a rigid diet such as that he described might work for some, but it is hardly the only approach and would not, IMO, result in a real understanding and for many would not be sustainable.
@WinoGelato is correct, I often don't reply. Not because I have nothing further to say but because I can't keep up! And like @GottaBurnEmAll says, occasionally I'm frustrated that I don't seem to be able to get my point across. I'm jealous of the way you, @lemurcat12, and many others, are able to so quickly and clearly express your point of view.
Once again, I have to abandon the conversation because of time constraints. I'm not going to take time to try to explain my position, but I am going to say that despite reading these sugar focussed threads for fours years now, hearing all the arguments, I still feel sugar has a role in weight gain for many. I think it's entirely possible that just cutting down on sweets would make a difference to the weight of most overweight/obese people. If not most, than a significant portion.
Not that these threads haven't influenced my thinking at all over these last few years. They definitely have. Unfortunately I don't have time right now to list out what I've learned, which would have been a nice way to show gratitude. I'll try to remember to put that together though at some point.
3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Ah the corporate golden years. Several whiskies with lunch and back to the office to sexually harass the secretary for the rest of the day.
Unfortunately not much has really changed
. Well, except for the smoking. 
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it? If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I do agree with Lemurcat12 that regardless his advice would be improved by talking about nutrition in general (what should people eat instead of those sweets?) and with everyone else that if he were talking about CICO instead of just sweets he'd get bigger praise from me.
You're grasping at straws hypothesizing at this point because of your personal experience.
BTW, I'm saying the same thing as Lemurcat about generalizing advice. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.
For the person who's wooing me, can you please tell me specifically what you disagree with me about? I'm not normally bothered by woos at all, but it's clear to me that maybe my cognitive difficulties are making it hard for me to get my point across in this thread and I must not be making myself clear if I don't appear to be saying the same things as lemurcat.
Because I'm trying to.
That would be nice, wouldn't it? If people could just have a civil discussion regarding what specifically they disagree with rather than just "wooing" anyone who seems to express a dissenting point of view? Now that the meaning of the woo button has been clarified and the emoticon has changed, its harder to just assume that someone meant the woo as a positive "woo hoo".
I've gotten my first official "woo"s of the new definition from this thread, and I too am perplexed what in my posts could be construed as pseudoscience or without scientific merit. If people don't like what I have to say, fine, but maybe take the time to articulate what it is you disagree with rather than copping out and clicking a button.
In addition to adding back the awesome button just giving people a simple "disagree" or "dislike" button would alleviate some of this persistent confusion.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it? If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I do agree with Lemurcat12 that regardless his advice would be improved by talking about nutrition in general (what should people eat instead of those sweets?) and with everyone else that if he were talking about CICO instead of just sweets he'd get bigger praise from me.
You're grasping at straws hypothesizing at this point because of your personal experience.
BTW, I'm saying the same thing as Lemurcat about generalizing advice. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.
For the person who's wooing me, can you please tell me specifically what you disagree with me about? I'm not normally bothered by woos at all, but it's clear to me that maybe my cognitive difficulties are making it hard for me to get my point across in this thread and I must not be making myself clear if I don't appear to be saying the same things as lemurcat.
Because I'm trying to.
That would be nice, wouldn't it? If people could just have a civil discussion regarding what specifically they disagree with rather than just "wooing" anyone who seems to express a dissenting point of view? Now that the meaning of the woo button has been clarified and the emoticon has changed, its harder to just assume that someone meant the woo as a positive "woo hoo".
I've gotten my first official "woo"s of the new definition from this thread, and I too am perplexed what in my posts could be construed as pseudoscience or without scientific merit. If people don't like what I have to say, fine, but maybe take the time to articulate what it is you disagree with rather than copping out and clicking a button.
In addition to adding back the awesome button just giving people a simple "disagree" or "dislike" button would alleviate some of this persistent confusion.
Well, in this discussion in particular, I find the clicking of the button perplexing.
Because those of us taking issue with the advice are saying not so much that it's wrong per se, but that's it's too specific to be helpful to everyone who has an issue with excess weight.
2 -
In other threads, I've read people still using it for "hooray" because that makes sense to them, even knowing "woo" is officially now a synonym for pseudoscience. A micro protest, a mini rebellion, if you will. (I strive to throw cold water).
Moreover, counting up any responses in general, there are frequently more clicks than explanation of those clicks: Why should "woo" be different? Isn't that what the buttons are for? It's just that "woo"s bother us analytic, like-to-chew-on-things people more.
Perhaps, having invested all that typing time, we feel the positive reactions are due, and the "woo"s . . . aren't.
Also, there are boatloads of people in the world who don't like to write, and other boatloads who like to stay anonymous (shy? unconfident?). Clicks are quick and anonymous. Many more people read threads than participate.
But I'm off topic (again). Probably should be a separate thread, but might be against TOS (meta, possibly makes lurkers feel shamed).
8 -
In other threads, I've read people still using it for "hooray" because that makes sense to them, even knowing "woo" is officially now a synonym for pseudoscience. A micro protest, a mini rebellion, if you will. (I strive to throw cold water).
Moreover, counting up any responses in general, there are frequently more clicks than explanation of those clicks: Why should "woo" be different? Isn't that what the buttons are for? It's just that "woo"s bother us analytic, like-to-chew-on-things people more.
Perhaps, having invested all that typing time, we feel the positive reactions are due, and the "woo"s . . . aren't.
Also, there are boatloads of people in the world who don't like to write, and other boatloads who like to stay anonymous (shy? unconfident?). Clicks are quick and anonymous. Many more people read threads than participate.
But I'm off topic (again). Probably should be a separate thread, but might be against TOS (meta, possibly makes lurkers feel shamed).
No to the bolded, and frankly, I find that condescending.
I'm not trying to make this about button clicking in general, it's more coming from a place where my own cognitive issues (due, in case you don't know, to a brain tumor and medication) might be causing issues with my communication. So I want to know if that's having an impact here, at least partially.
I also, as I said, don't understand it in the context of the discussions on this thread since the debate has been not so much disagreement, but that the scope of the OP was too narrow.
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it? If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I do agree with Lemurcat12 that regardless his advice would be improved by talking about nutrition in general (what should people eat instead of those sweets?) and with everyone else that if he were talking about CICO instead of just sweets he'd get bigger praise from me.
You're grasping at straws hypothesizing at this point because of your personal experience.
BTW, I'm saying the same thing as Lemurcat about generalizing advice. I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.
For the person who's wooing me, can you please tell me specifically what you disagree with me about? I'm not normally bothered by woos at all, but it's clear to me that maybe my cognitive difficulties are making it hard for me to get my point across in this thread and I must not be making myself clear if I don't appear to be saying the same things as lemurcat.
Because I'm trying to.
That would be nice, wouldn't it? If people could just have a civil discussion regarding what specifically they disagree with rather than just "wooing" anyone who seems to express a dissenting point of view? Now that the meaning of the woo button has been clarified and the emoticon has changed, its harder to just assume that someone meant the woo as a positive "woo hoo".
I've gotten my first official "woo"s of the new definition from this thread, and I too am perplexed what in my posts could be construed as pseudoscience or without scientific merit. If people don't like what I have to say, fine, but maybe take the time to articulate what it is you disagree with rather than copping out and clicking a button.
In addition to adding back the awesome button just giving people a simple "disagree" or "dislike" button would alleviate some of this persistent confusion.
Yes this.
In discussions like this, I think it does get used as a "dislike" and just chalk it up to that, shrug, and move on (and I got woo'd here too, just a few pages back), but I find it frustrating, since I really AM interested in discussing this and understanding why someone thinks the advice I'm recommending is bad, if they do.5 -
Perhaps, having invested all that typing time, we feel the positive reactions are due, and the "woo"s . . . aren't.
It's not this. It's that I think someone who clicks "like" means they like the post -- it's self evident (even if I disagree about whether the post is likable). Someone who clicks "woo" presumably means they think the post is unscientific or what not, and often that's self-evident too (and in those threads usually at least one person explains and the rest click rather than being repetitive). In debates like this a "woo" that is not explained where the post seems not to fit the normal definition of "woo" seems like a passive-aggressive "dislike." So I wish there was just a dislike or disagree for the people who want to use it that way (I don't think I would use such a button, personally).
But I don't really think that reactions add much to a forum anyway and was against having any of them. I use them a lot (used to use awesome a lot, especially) now that we do, but I think they get used passive-aggressively too often and also it's easy to make assumptions about who is doing that and often those assumptions may be unfair.
But like you said, I'm probably off-topic too now! ;-)3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Perhaps, having invested all that typing time, we feel the positive reactions are due, and the "woo"s . . . aren't.
It's not this. It's that I think someone who clicks "like" means they like the post -- it's self evident (even if I disagree about whether the post is likable). Someone who clicks "woo" presumably means they think the post is unscientific or what not, and often that's self-evident too (and in those threads usually at least one person explains and the rest click rather than being repetitive). In debates like this a "woo" that is not explained where the post seems not to fit the normal definition of "woo" seems like a passive-aggressive "dislike." So I wish there was just a dislike or disagree for the people who want to use it that way (I don't think I would use such a button, personally).
But I don't really think that reactions add much to a forum anyway and was against having any of them. I use them a lot (used to use awesome a lot, especially) now that we do, but I think they get used passive-aggressively too often and also it's easy to make assumptions about who is doing that and often those assumptions may be unfair.
But like you said, I'm probably off-topic too now! ;-)
It may seem perverse, but I pretty much agree with everything you said, as well as what as what @GottaBurnEmAll said.
The part you both quoted/bolded? 80% joking, hence the winkie. 20% a (paranoid? hyoer-analytic? unconfident . . nah, not that) habit of mind, one that causes me to think about my own reactions, and ask myself whether there might be cognitive or or character flaws at the root, and if so, what shape they might take. The mystery "woo"s bug me, too.
I didn't "woo" either of you, BTW.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Perhaps, having invested all that typing time, we feel the positive reactions are due, and the "woo"s . . . aren't.
It's not this. It's that I think someone who clicks "like" means they like the post -- it's self evident (even if I disagree about whether the post is likable). Someone who clicks "woo" presumably means they think the post is unscientific or what not, and often that's self-evident too (and in those threads usually at least one person explains and the rest click rather than being repetitive). In debates like this a "woo" that is not explained where the post seems not to fit the normal definition of "woo" seems like a passive-aggressive "dislike." So I wish there was just a dislike or disagree for the people who want to use it that way (I don't think I would use such a button, personally).
But I don't really think that reactions add much to a forum anyway and was against having any of them. I use them a lot (used to use awesome a lot, especially) now that we do, but I think they get used passive-aggressively too often and also it's easy to make assumptions about who is doing that and often those assumptions may be unfair.
But like you said, I'm probably off-topic too now! ;-)
It may seem perverse, but I pretty much agree with everything you said, as well as what as what @GottaBurnEmAll said.
The part you both quoted/bolded? 80% joking, hence the winkie. 20% a (paranoid? hyoer-analytic? unconfident . . nah, not that) habit of mind, one that causes me to think about my own reactions, and ask myself whether there might be cognitive or or character flaws at the root, and if so, what shape they might take. The mystery "woo"s bug me, too.
I didn't "woo" either of you, BTW.
Thanks for expanding a bit about your post. I know I'm feeling a bit sensitive because the cognitive thing has been a bit more apparent IRL lately and I'm a bit on edge about it. Anyway, the woo thing normally doesn't bug me in the slightest.
It's just in the context of this particular conversation because I thought we were getting to the point where the discussion was becoming productive. So, part of me was wondering if my cognitive issues regarding communication were part of the problem, and part of me was wondering what I was missing about not seeing a middle ground being reached.0 -
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Perhaps, having invested all that typing time, we feel the positive reactions are due, and the "woo"s . . . aren't.
It's not this. It's that I think someone who clicks "like" means they like the post -- it's self evident (even if I disagree about whether the post is likable). Someone who clicks "woo" presumably means they think the post is unscientific or what not, and often that's self-evident too (and in those threads usually at least one person explains and the rest click rather than being repetitive). In debates like this a "woo" that is not explained where the post seems not to fit the normal definition of "woo" seems like a passive-aggressive "dislike." So I wish there was just a dislike or disagree for the people who want to use it that way (I don't think I would use such a button, personally).
But I don't really think that reactions add much to a forum anyway and was against having any of them. I use them a lot (used to use awesome a lot, especially) now that we do, but I think they get used passive-aggressively too often and also it's easy to make assumptions about who is doing that and often those assumptions may be unfair.
But like you said, I'm probably off-topic too now! ;-)
It may seem perverse, but I pretty much agree with everything you said, as well as what as what @GottaBurnEmAll said.
The part you both quoted/bolded? 80% joking, hence the winkie. 20% a (paranoid? hyoer-analytic? unconfident . . nah, not that) habit of mind, one that causes me to think about my own reactions, and ask myself whether there might be cognitive or or character flaws at the root, and if so, what shape they might take. The mystery "woo"s bug me, too.
I didn't "woo" either of you, BTW.
Thanks for expanding a bit about your post. I know I'm feeling a bit sensitive because the cognitive thing has been a bit more apparent IRL lately and I'm a bit on edge about it. Anyway, the woo thing normally doesn't bug me in the slightest.
It's just in the context of this particular conversation because I thought we were getting to the point where the discussion was becoming productive. So, part of me was wondering if my cognitive issues regarding communication were part of the problem, and part of me was wondering what I was missing about not seeing a middle ground being reached.
I've read all your posts and I don't think there is any issue on your part with clarity. They have all made good sense to me.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Perhaps, having invested all that typing time, we feel the positive reactions are due, and the "woo"s . . . aren't.
It's not this. It's that I think someone who clicks "like" means they like the post -- it's self evident (even if I disagree about whether the post is likable). Someone who clicks "woo" presumably means they think the post is unscientific or what not, and often that's self-evident too (and in those threads usually at least one person explains and the rest click rather than being repetitive). In debates like this a "woo" that is not explained where the post seems not to fit the normal definition of "woo" seems like a passive-aggressive "dislike." So I wish there was just a dislike or disagree for the people who want to use it that way (I don't think I would use such a button, personally).
But I don't really think that reactions add much to a forum anyway and was against having any of them. I use them a lot (used to use awesome a lot, especially) now that we do, but I think they get used passive-aggressively too often and also it's easy to make assumptions about who is doing that and often those assumptions may be unfair.
But like you said, I'm probably off-topic too now! ;-)
It may seem perverse, but I pretty much agree with everything you said, as well as what as what @GottaBurnEmAll said.
The part you both quoted/bolded? 80% joking, hence the winkie. 20% a (paranoid? hyoer-analytic? unconfident . . nah, not that) habit of mind, one that causes me to think about my own reactions, and ask myself whether there might be cognitive or or character flaws at the root, and if so, what shape they might take. The mystery "woo"s bug me, too.
I didn't "woo" either of you, BTW.
Thanks for expanding a bit about your post. I know I'm feeling a bit sensitive because the cognitive thing has been a bit more apparent IRL lately and I'm a bit on edge about it. Anyway, the woo thing normally doesn't bug me in the slightest.
It's just in the context of this particular conversation because I thought we were getting to the point where the discussion was becoming productive. So, part of me was wondering if my cognitive issues regarding communication were part of the problem, and part of me was wondering what I was missing about not seeing a middle ground being reached.
I've read all your posts and I don't think there is any issue on your part with clarity. They have all made good sense to me.
Thank you, that's reassuring. You should hear me in person. There's a lot of aphasia going down around here!3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions