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 some WOE more acceptable than others?
Options
Replies
-
youngmomtaz wrote: »Thanks for all the thoughts everyone! The ethical standpoint of vegetarian/veganism is actually, embarrassingly, completely honestly, something I had forgotten. Of the IRL people I know who eat in those styles only one does so because she can’t stand the texture of meat. Not a love for the animal but just a dislike of meat. The rest do it for “health”.
I still don’t think that having a moral standpoint on it should make it “more ok” and less questioned than Keto eating. Not saying either should be questioned. It just feels like there is a mad rush to be the first person the tell them that they don’t have to eat that way instead of actually helping them.
But what if telling them they don't have to eat that way IS helping them?
There are so many people out there right now who have read all the headlines and decided carbs are universally bad and cause you to gain weight. They look on Youtube and start watching videos of people who tell them all they have to do is eat keto and the weight will fall off, they will feel amazing, and they'll develop ESP. So they honestly believe they have to drop carbs super low, or they are doomed to stay fat. We see so many people who feel like failures because they can't hack eating the one right way. And I have seen enough people here who learned they didn't have to eat one right way, and it freed them from all the guilt and failure and BS and they lost their weight.
Someone who has successfully eaten keto for years can feel free to jump in and give that person tips on how to do keto better. I will continue to jump in and tell them they don't have to eat that way if it doesn't work for them. Just like I'll say to anyone else who is miserable eating the way they think they have to, whatever way that is.
I remember one time where someone seriously was telling me that OP saying they can't stick to low carb is no reason to tell them they don't have to do it. According to them it would've been better to make them struggle through it as long as they stayed low carb.9 -
fuzzylop72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Raw veganism gets questioned a LOT more than keto, IMO (and. also IMO, rightly so), and so do low protein forms of veganism.
You can certainly be healthy on a raw vegan diet, but there are certain issues you have to contend with and many aren't doing things like sprouting pulses. Low protein veganism, on the other hand, I don't think you can make any sort of evidence based case for (by low, I mean sub-20% of calories from protein).
An aside, but it depends on total calories (which is why I hate the percentage approach). People will say things like "Kenyan marathoners do 80-10-10," and I think they almost do (the study I've seen said 10% protein, 77% carbs, 13% fat), but 10% of a professional marathoner's calories is different than 10% of someone eating 1200 or even 1500. Apparently the numbers work out to about .6 g per lb for the marathoners. Not vegans, but largely plant-based and relevant comparison, I think.4 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »I do Keto, I have been blasted even posting that it works great for me and why I like it. There are a lot of people on MF who follow many different plans for different reason. My thought...If you personally don't follow it-don't contribute to the thread. Your not the type of person being pooled for an opinion (most of the time).
And all the responses about people struggling- remember, people struggle with CICO too. Cravings are not unique to one sort of diet plan. I don't do that to those of you who are gym queens and kings nor those of you doing CICO or Vegan or anything else. When someone asks for support on that problem, stick to what you do and know and not jump in on what other people live every day.
Anyone who is losing, maintaining, or gaining weight, basically everyone who is alive is "doing CICO". CICO is not a diet or way of eating, it's an energy balance and it applies to everyone. If you lose weight doing Keto, it's because of CICO, and you happened to find a way of eating that you find sustainable to help you adhere to your calorie deficit.
22 -
It should be noted that there was a rather stridently obnoxious anti-keto poster in this forum recently, and many of the posters who were first to correct his misinformation are the very ones who are usually called anti-keto.13
-
I don't care how anyone else personally eats.
If a low carb diet works for you fine. If you don't want to eat meat fine. If you want to eat tomato soup and eggs go for it.
Having been here awhile anyone who posts that you have to eat this diet or avoid a particular food to lose weight is corrected. WOE is preference unless you have to follow a particular diet for medical reasons.
7 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »I do Keto, I have been blasted even posting that it works great for me and why I like it. There are a lot of people on MF who follow many different plans for different reason. My thought...If you personally don't follow it-don't contribute to the thread. Your not the type of person being pooled for an opinion (most of the time).
And all the responses about people struggling- remember, people struggle with CICO too. Cravings are not unique to one sort of diet plan. I don't do that to those of you who are gym queens and kings nor those of you doing CICO or Vegan or anything else. When someone asks for support on that problem, stick to what you do and know and not jump in on what other people live every day.
@lisawolfinger
Care to find the thread and share the link where you felt you got blasted?
Would be curious to see what you said beyond that it works great for you because I would be surprised if that simple statement would even elicit a response.
I've got an open mind though because there are some aggressive and unreasonable proponents for keto and detractors opposing it.
"Keto has been killing children for a 100 years" (paraphrasing) was a jaw-dropping example recently!!
Don't actually agree with the premise of "keeping out if you don't do that" - balance is important for debate and discussion or people get a false view.
For (hopefully a non-controversial) example... There's a big fashion for pre-workout supplements at the moment. If only people who use PWOs contributed to those threads it makes it seem like everyone takes them and therefore they are necessary. Pointing out that they aren't necessary and not everyone takes them, or present an alternative such as coffee or a banana does give balance.20 -
jseams1234 wrote: »OP... start a thread about going vegan because you watched "What the Health" and then compare it to your typical Keto discussion.
Yeah, we had a couple over the summer, and the vegan's were coming out of the woodwork to lambaste the "documentary"4 -
LiveLoveFitFab wrote: »BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE VEGETARIAN OR VEGAN AREN'T DOING IT TO LOSE WEIGHT!
Seriously. We do it because we love animals, or it's our religion, or it's our beliefs, or we don't like the taste of meat and so on... Anyone who becomes a vegetarian for weight loss doesn't last, or they stop losing weight when they realize how many chips, cookies and candies are meatless.
Disagree. I went plant-based for health reasons almost 18 months ago. I used to call myself vegan because those who follow veganism as an ethical choice tend to get their hackles up when someone who made the decision for health reasons decides to eat that way. Sometimes I refer to myself in the tongue-I’m-cheek fashion of “veganish”. My point is, I made the decision to go fully plant based for health and diet reasons and it’s lasted 18 months, so I wouldn’t cast such a broad net.
10 -
stevencloser wrote: »youngmomtaz wrote: »Thanks for all the thoughts everyone! The ethical standpoint of vegetarian/veganism is actually, embarrassingly, completely honestly, something I had forgotten. Of the IRL people I know who eat in those styles only one does so because she can’t stand the texture of meat. Not a love for the animal but just a dislike of meat. The rest do it for “health”.
I still don’t think that having a moral standpoint on it should make it “more ok” and less questioned than Keto eating. Not saying either should be questioned. It just feels like there is a mad rush to be the first person the tell them that they don’t have to eat that way instead of actually helping them.
But what if telling them they don't have to eat that way IS helping them?
There are so many people out there right now who have read all the headlines and decided carbs are universally bad and cause you to gain weight. They look on Youtube and start watching videos of people who tell them all they have to do is eat keto and the weight will fall off, they will feel amazing, and they'll develop ESP. So they honestly believe they have to drop carbs super low, or they are doomed to stay fat. We see so many people who feel like failures because they can't hack eating the one right way. And I have seen enough people here who learned they didn't have to eat one right way, and it freed them from all the guilt and failure and BS and they lost their weight.
Someone who has successfully eaten keto for years can feel free to jump in and give that person tips on how to do keto better. I will continue to jump in and tell them they don't have to eat that way if it doesn't work for them. Just like I'll say to anyone else who is miserable eating the way they think they have to, whatever way that is.
I remember one time where someone seriously was telling me that OP saying they can't stick to low carb is no reason to tell them they don't have to do it. According to them it would've been better to make them struggle through it as long as they stayed low carb.
What a coincidence. Exactly the same thing seems to be happening in a thread right now.6 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »I do Keto, I have been blasted even posting that it works great for me and why I like it. There are a lot of people on MF who follow many different plans for different reason. My thought...If you personally don't follow it-don't contribute to the thread. Your not the type of person being pooled for an opinion (most of the time).
And all the responses about people struggling- remember, people struggle with CICO too. Cravings are not unique to one sort of diet plan. I don't do that to those of you who are gym queens and kings nor those of you doing CICO or Vegan or anything else. When someone asks for support on that problem, stick to what you do and know and not jump in on what other people live every day.
@lisawolfinger
Care to find the thread and share the link where you felt you got blasted?
Would be curious to see what you said beyond that it works great for you because I would be surprised if that simple statement would even elicit a response.
I've got an open mind though because there are some aggressive and unreasonable proponents for keto and detractors opposing it.
"Keto has been killing children for a 100 years" (paraphrasing) was a jaw-dropping example recently!!
Don't actually agree with the premise of "keeping out if you don't do that" - balance is important for debate and discussion or people get a false view.
For (hopefully a non-controversial) example... There's a big fashion for pre-workout supplements at the moment. If only people who use PWOs contributed to those threads it makes it seem like everyone takes them and therefore they are necessary. Pointing out that they aren't necessary and not everyone takes them, or present an alternative such as coffee or a banana does give balance.
Not to drag it too off topic but the pre-workout thing can be dangerous/detrimental for some people and they might not even realise it. Just not putting two and two together that they are stimulants and not suitable to some for health reasons. Myself included (ain't nobody got time for a hypomanic episode to be triggered).
On another side note, Starbucks here (UK) now have turmeric tea. I think I actually made a stank face in the queue.5 -
There was a thread just before Christmas where a type 2 diabetic asked for help in staving off the holiday sweet cravings he had.
The response to him hat he should stop demonizing sugar and just make room in his calories for those treats was priceless and typical of the WOE pushback here that I see. I still worry about that poor fellow. (Tho thankfully some folks did offer some good usable suggestions and not try to ridicule his struggle - but he disappeared from the boards )
I don’t think some WOE’s have it easier on MFP, really. iF’ers, gluten free, sugar abstainers, clean eaters, good carb/bad carb, keto, vegan whatever. Even posters who explain health needs for a WOE (“I’m a type 2 diabetic and need to limit my sugar”) get the pushback (“stop demonizing sugar and just fit treats into your calories determined by CICO.”)
20 -
That's not what I see at all.4
-
There was a thread just before Christmas where a type 2 diabetic asked for help in staving off the holiday sweet cravings he had.
The response to him hat he should stop demonizing sugar and just make room in his calories for those treats was priceless and typical of the WOE pushback here that I see. I still worry about that poor fellow. (Tho thankfully some folks did offer some good usable suggestions and not try to ridicule his struggle - but he disappeared from the boards )
I don’t think some WOE’s have it easier on MFP, really. iF’ers, gluten free, sugar abstainers, clean eaters, good carb/bad carb, keto, vegan whatever. Even posters who explain health needs for a WOE (“I’m a type 2 diabetic and need to limit my sugar”) get the pushback (“stop demonizing sugar and just fit treats into your calories determined by CICO.”)
QFT7 -
fuzzylop72 wrote: »Is this generally true? I get the feeling most keto practitioners do intend on eating that way permanently, although I'll admit my knowledge of keto is pretty limited.
And most "diets" fail in maintenance because the lifestyle limitations aren't sustainable for the long haul. They may well intend to eat that way permanently - good luck to them with that.
All the people flooding the gyms this month intend to keep exercising forever, and almost all of them will be gone by end of next month.
But isn’t sustainablility an individual thing, not one size fits all?
I’ll get the woo storm for this but daily calorie restriction to a CICO determined level was not sustainable for me. It meant less than 1500 calories a day as maintenance and constant hangry. So I explored some WOE’s to see what might make a sustainable lifetime eating plan for me that would not have me gain weight but also would not turn me into Ms. Hangry.
I found a WOE that works for me. I don’t evangelize it, nor do I expect it would work for the next person. I do think it is worth trying. And it isn’t Keto, I like my potatoes too much but I sure think those looking for their individual sustainable path should try Keto if it sounds like a match for them. And I hope experienced Keto-ers see their threads with questions and help.
Because I do not think that a drive by reply along the lines of “you don’t need to do ‘x’ to lose weight” helps anyone. Or is supportive. Or even is common courtesy. IM(worthless)O it is mocking, ridiculing, shaming etc type of response.
YMMV.17 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »There was a thread just before Christmas where a type 2 diabetic asked for help in staving off the holiday sweet cravings he had.
The response to him hat he should stop demonizing sugar and just make room in his calories for those treats was priceless and typical of the WOE pushback here that I see. I still worry about that poor fellow. (Tho thankfully some folks did offer some good usable suggestions and not try to ridicule his struggle - but he disappeared from the boards )
I don’t think some WOE’s have it easier on MFP, really. iF’ers, gluten free, sugar abstainers, clean eaters, good carb/bad carb, keto, vegan whatever. Even posters who explain health needs for a WOE (“I’m a type 2 diabetic and need to limit my sugar”) get the pushback (“stop demonizing sugar and just fit treats into your calories determined by CICO.”)
QFT
Sorry, I don’t know how to link to a discussion on my phone. The thread title was ‘The Xmas dilemma’ and the forum food and nutrition. Time period December.0 -
youngmomtaz wrote: »Mods: please remove this if it is against guidelines.
I am just wondering why there is so much pushback against low carb high fat or Keto WOE but never against others like vegetarian or vegan? A vegan can ask a dietary question and have it answered directly with no off topic replys. A poster asking for advice or info about their current Keto protocol is immediately told that “they do not need to eat low carb to lose weight” while the asked question is often ignored.
I tend to not post in vegan/vegetarian threads because I don’t know enough about proper nutrition on these diets. But, using an example, I assume if I went into a thread where someone claimed to be low energy while eating vegan and I told them to eat some steak and eggs for better absorption of B vitamins, I would be lamb basted.
When I eat Keto my energy is better, my A1C is normal and not prediabetic range, my digestion is improved, my migraines reduce to almost zero. And all of this without weight loss. People typically will not stay on a “diet” that has them feeling poorly. So why are there such strong feelings about lchf? I have a hard time believing it is just about the weight loss claims because I see/hear of may people who think low fat or dropping meat will promote automatic weight loss as well. Why not encourage people to try and see how they feel best?
Bit of a ramble there, I am just honestly curious.
*pops popcorn for everyone though I hope it’s not needed.
I usually only really see this when the OP is under some impression that keto (or whatever particular WOE) is necessary for weight loss or when outlandish claims of being a cure all or that this or that particular WOE is the most optimal for health.
Vegans get the same exact push back when they start preaching about veganism being the only way to truly be healthy....there's just less threads about it due to the fact that Keto is very trendy at the moment...7 -
kommodevaran wrote: »I have strong feelings about people struggling and failing unnecessarily, maybe because I have done so myself for so many years. Veganism is an ethical choice, LCHF is not. If LCHF works for you - great! If you have to eat LCHF for your health - I'll support you! But when someone comes in here and say they hate whatever diet they are on, but claim that they have to follow it, or that it somehow provides some unproven advantage, I will try to dissuade them.
I have ethics against wheat, corn, and rice. Especially rice since where I live it's a key crop but it requires so much clean water it actually causes problems for the local wild life, citizens and animals in the Summers where drought is problemmatic.
Unethical farming practices are also killing the rainforests and contributes largely to global warming so buying their crops incentives that behavior. Plus it is killing the work for local farmers because they can provide food at lower costs.
Chemically treated plants and farming are killing off our bees. Plus bees don't pollinate corn. A major crop in the US.
Corn pollen contaminated with pesticides still make it on flowers bees do pollinate and it kills the bees.
So my ethics require me to eat a diet full of local grass fed beef, offal, wild caught fish and leafy greens, local fruits (black berries) and other cruciferous vegetables that can be grown locally responsibly without interfering in animal ecology and didn't cost an arm and a leg in fossil fuels to be shipped to my table.
So I eat LCHF
19 -
There was a thread just before Christmas where a type 2 diabetic asked for help in staving off the holiday sweet cravings he had.
The response to him hat he should stop demonizing sugar and just make room in his calories for those treats was priceless and typical of the WOE pushback here that I see. I still worry about that poor fellow. (Tho thankfully some folks did offer some good usable suggestions and not try to ridicule his struggle - but he disappeared from the boards )
I don’t think some WOE’s have it easier on MFP, really. iF’ers, gluten free, sugar abstainers, clean eaters, good carb/bad carb, keto, vegan whatever. Even posters who explain health needs for a WOE (“I’m a type 2 diabetic and need to limit my sugar”) get the pushback (“stop demonizing sugar and just fit treats into your calories determined by CICO.”)
I don't typically see that...maybe here and there and usually when someone only read the title and not the thread or something...I see people asking if there are medical conditions far more than I see people ignoring medical conditions.12 -
fuzzylop72 wrote: »Is this generally true? I get the feeling most keto practitioners do intend on eating that way permanently, although I'll admit my knowledge of keto is pretty limited.
And most "diets" fail in maintenance because the lifestyle limitations aren't sustainable for the long haul. They may well intend to eat that way permanently - good luck to them with that.
All the people flooding the gyms this month intend to keep exercising forever, and almost all of them will be gone by end of next month.
But isn’t sustainablility an individual thing, not one size fits all?
I’ll get the woo storm for this but daily calorie restriction to a CICO determined level was not sustainable for me. It meant less than 1500 calories a day as maintenance and constant hangry. So I explored some WOE’s to see what might make a sustainable lifetime eating plan for me that would not have me gain weight but also would not turn me into Ms. Hangry.
I found a WOE that works for me. I don’t evangelize it, nor do I expect it would work for the next person. I do think it is worth trying. And it isn’t Keto, I like my potatoes too much but I sure think those looking for their individual sustainable path should try Keto if it sounds like a match for them. And I hope experienced Keto-ers see their threads with questions and help.
Because I do not think that a drive by reply along the lines of “you don’t need to do ‘x’ to lose weight” helps anyone. Or is supportive. Or even is common courtesy. IM(worthless)O it is mocking, ridiculing, shaming etc type of response.
YMMV.
Are you saying that the way you've chosen to eat enables you to eat more than the 1500 calories you've determined as your maintenance level, and still lose weight?
With the last paragraph - I think that is a misrepresentation of what is happening in those sorts of threads. @lemurcat12 gave a typical scenario above, where someone might respond and say "you don't NEED to go low carb to lose weight" and it is almost always in response to a poster who indicates they are struggling, or who clearly has a misconception about weight loss that certain things are required in order to be successful.
Whether that is helpful, or offensive, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. For me, knowing that I don't HAVE to do something, that there are multiple ways to achieve my goals, IS helpful, and I think that a lot of people do feel that way. You want to see that as mocking or ridiculing, I think that's on you, for interpreting what someone meant with a simple "that isn't required". There's nothing mocking or negative in that statement whatsoever. You are reading negativity into it.14 -
2
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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions