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.

Unpopular opinions

1235

Replies

  • zeejane03
    zeejane03 Posts: 993 Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    Fiber is unnecessary

    But what if all we ate was steak sandwiches and we got constipated?

    Fiber constipates me (no matter how much water I drink). Fiber is unnecessary roughage and taxing to the intestines. I've dramatically lowered fiber and am finally having regular bowel movements and less bloating/pain.

    It has the opposite affect on me. My fiber intake is now 40g+ a day and I'm 'regular' 2-3 times a day. To each their own!
  • SpicyWater
    SpicyWater Posts: 99 Member
    Fiber is unnecessary

    It's real necessary for me. If I don't get close to what MFP recommends for me I'm super constipated.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    edited January 2019
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    I hate steak 🤢

    giphy.gif

    I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.

    I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.

    :open_mouth:

    Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol

    Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot? :D:D
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,753 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    I hate steak 🤢

    giphy.gif

    I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.

    I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.

    :open_mouth:

    Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol

    Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot? :D:D

    You have to be very very sneaky.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,198 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    I hate steak 🤢

    giphy.gif

    I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.

    I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.

    :open_mouth:

    Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol

    Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot? :D:D

    You have to be very very sneaky.

    Do owls taste like chicken? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    I hate steak 🤢

    giphy.gif

    I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.

    I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.

    :open_mouth:

    Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol

    Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot? :D:D

    You have to be very very sneaky.

    Do owls taste like chicken? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

    More like Bald Eagles.....
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,753 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    I hate steak 🤢

    giphy.gif

    I dunno - I hated steak well into adulthood because growing up economically pinched the only steak we ever had was a pan-fried cheap cut that was so tough I could barely chew it. When I was finally introduced to a good cut of meat prepared properly I was converted, but honestly, I wouldn't even have tried it without a lot of persuasion.

    I had that same experience when I was a kid. Chuck steak was tougher than a boiled owl.

    :open_mouth:

    Have ever tried to get an owl into a crockpot, they are tough. Lol

    Let's back up. Have you ever tried catching an owl in order to put it in the crockpot? :D:D

    You have to be very very sneaky.

    Do owls taste like chicken? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

    More like Bald Eagles.....

    You are Canadian? We eat turkey down here.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,753 Member
    Math. Urgh
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Math. Urgh

    That's why you go with big round numbers. Much easier to calculate 20% of 100.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.

    Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.

    My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.

    The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.

    What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.

    Have you got 44 inch tires on it?

    I've seen guys who are off that much. Most get it fixed at the tranny/transfer case with aftermarket products or software patches.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Math. Urgh

    That's why you go with big round numbers. Much easier to calculate 20% of 100.

    Yeah, well I'm an accountant so I use my high school algebra most days. :)
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.

    Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.

    My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.

    The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.

    What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.

    Have you got 44 inch tires on it?

    I've seen guys who are off that much. Most get it fixed at the tranny/transfer case with aftermarket products or software patches.

    44 inch tires on my car would look a lot like this:

    maxresdefault.jpg

    And????
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.

    Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.

    My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.

    The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.

    What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.

    Have you got 44 inch tires on it?

    I've seen guys who are off that much. Most get it fixed at the tranny/transfer case with aftermarket products or software patches.

    44 inch tires on my car would look a lot like this:

    maxresdefault.jpg

    And????

    I'm short. I'd need a ladder to climb in. Seems like an awful lot of effort to get out of an alleged speeding ticket or two.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,198 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.

    Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.

    My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.

    The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.

    What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.

    Have you got 44 inch tires on it?

    I've seen guys who are off that much. Most get it fixed at the tranny/transfer case with aftermarket products or software patches.

    For this you have a serious answer.

    Now that's funny.

    ;););)
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Are the assumptions and formulas used to calculate CI and CO going to be 100% exact for everyone...well, no....but nothing is and it doesn't have to be to be extremely useful. Chances are (and I mean that in the literal stats sense) that of someone calorie tracking and it doesn't match their weight change it will be more likely to be inaccurate tracking than 3-sigma special snowflake status.

    Was thinking about this and I think I thought of a good example of something else that is accepted as "good enough" to clarify.

    My speedometer is off by 2%. So when I'm going 100kmh, my truck says 102. I've tested this against a GPS. GM (my truck brand) calibrates their speedos to a standard tire size, but it might not be the exact size they put on. And tire size varies from brand to brand. VW (from what I understand) can be as much as 5% off. Probably to help fake MPG numbers. But all in all, it's good enough and you don't really need to care unless you seriously go from stock size (like offroaders will do). Cops and the courts understand this and don't target the exact speed limit, but allow wiggle room. Some more than others, but always enough to cover the difference. It also means if you are diligently driving the speed limit, as per your speedo, you may be passed by someone doing the same thing with.

    The calorie estimates are "good enough". If your experience is dramatically different, then you are likely making a mistake. Yeah, there are people with absorption issues (and guys running 44 inch tires), but in general you either know about them or need to see a doctor. Barring a serious medical issue, you are going to be good enough with the models.

    What's the likelihood the expected error on my car is 20%? I feel like this could be compelling next time I'm doing 120 in a 100 zone.

    Good luck with that. I know what my answer to you would be. >:)
    Please sign at the bottom. Press hard, there's five copies.

    Meanie. :tongue:
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    edited January 2019
    .
  • chris_in_cal
    chris_in_cal Posts: 2,520 Member
    The resistance felt when considering removing an MFP friend who hasn't logged on in over six months, is the same force that is holding on to all the rest of life's baggage.