people aren't different?
Options
Replies
-
Seriously? She's obviously an exception. If she came onto the message boards and explained her situation, no one would be like "oh look at the special snowflake".
and we resort to the harassment.
glad to see this place hasn't changed. :drinker:0 -
Seriously? She's obviously an exception. If she came onto the message boards and explained her situation, no one would be like "oh look at the special snowflake".
and we resort to the harassment.
glad to see this place hasn't changed. :drinker:
I hope you're not saying *I* resorted to harassment. (?)0 -
Please tell me where i said anything about calorie deficit not working?
if 100 people ate the exact same things and performed the exact same exercises... nothing less and nothing more. their bodies would not repspond the same.... hence the difference.
people are different, we behave differently, and our bodies react differently to different approaches.
and again my point is why the need to try to belittle people about it? where's the helpfulness in it? what's the point in it?
^ this is true.
Sadly, the argument could easily be settled by saying both sides are right, because they are.
GENERALLY speaking, all humans respond to the "laws of thermodynamics" in the same way. Cal in/cal out. HOWEVER, how do you account for people with metabolic disorders or food allergies or sensitivities? What about endo/ecto/mesomorphs who clearly respond to calories differently from each other. Clearly we don't ALL work the same, or none of those would exist.
Do most people use the "special snowflake" idea as an excuse? Yep. Are there some circumstances where there may be some validity to that claim? Also yep.
I don't know why there needs to be such hostility though... chill out yall, it's just food.
Even with the people who have conditions that might slow weight loss or make it a bit more tricky, it's still all about Calories In vs. Calories Out. Will they lose weight as quickly or in the exact same way as other people? No. But they will still lose weight.
so what you're saying is, even though the law of thermodynamics remains constant, the experience of weight loss varies from person to person? meaning that some have different experiences than others? some may have to work harder than others to achieve their goals? just want to clarify.0 -
Please tell me where i said anything about calorie deficit not working?
if 100 people ate the exact same things and performed the exact same exercises... nothing less and nothing more. their bodies would not repspond the same.... hence the difference.
people are different, we behave differently, and our bodies react differently to different approaches.
and again my point is why the need to try to belittle people about it? where's the helpfulness in it? what's the point in it?
^ this is true.
Sadly, the argument could easily be settled by saying both sides are right, because they are.
GENERALLY speaking, all humans respond to the "laws of thermodynamics" in the same way. Cal in/cal out. HOWEVER, how do you account for people with metabolic disorders or food allergies or sensitivities? What about endo/ecto/mesomorphs who clearly respond to calories differently from each other. Clearly we don't ALL work the same, or none of those would exist.
Do most people use the "special snowflake" idea as an excuse? Yep. Are there some circumstances where there may be some validity to that claim? Also yep.
I don't know why there needs to be such hostility though... chill out yall, it's just food.
Even with the people who have conditions that might slow weight loss or make it a bit more tricky, it's still all about Calories In vs. Calories Out. Will they lose weight as quickly or in the exact same way as other people? No. But they will still lose weight.
so what you're saying is, even though the law of thermodynamics remains constant, the experience of weight loss varies from person to person? meaning that some have different experiences than others? some may have to work harder than others to achieve their goals? just want to clarify.
I never said anywhere in this thread that speed of results wouldn't vary. I'm just saying caloric deficit = weight loss. Caloric surplus = weight gain.0 -
"We are all different. But we're not THAT different. Science still applies. If our bodies were all drastically different, our doctors would have a heck of a time treating us. Think about it. Any treatment or prescription someone receives exists because it was tested across the board on large groups of people and was shown to be successful for its intended purposes. "
Note that 'testing' of new products/medicines/drugs will predominantly only show that pills/methods are better than placebo, rather than better than the best medicine currently out there. To compare new with old is a riskier proposition. Only releasing the data/research that shows the positive effects is also the norm. Just a thought on a side topic.
-- On topic, getting into the 'how different' category is really hard without quantifying things. While calories in vs out is simple, and likely true, it's very difficult to be the judge of the 'out' part of that equation, and hormones beyond our control affect it (not determine, but for instance, twitching will be reduced if your body is trying to conserve energy/be at a higher weight set point). I think successful people often forget how hard/scary it is at first to lose weight and change eating habits.
I do wish that the cookie cutter estimates that MFP used could be more readily changed. Currently that must be done in the custom settings, which is a bit cumbersome. If someone is consistently eating at a calorie level, and the weight is not changing, then being able to adjust what our actual energy expenditure/calories in should be would be a nice feature.0 -
Please tell me where i said anything about calorie deficit not working?
if 100 people ate the exact same things and performed the exact same exercises... nothing less and nothing more. their bodies would not repspond the same.... hence the difference.
people are different, we behave differently, and our bodies react differently to different approaches.
and again my point is why the need to try to belittle people about it? where's the helpfulness in it? what's the point in it?
^ this is true.
Sadly, the argument could easily be settled by saying both sides are right, because they are.
GENERALLY speaking, all humans respond to the "laws of thermodynamics" in the same way. Cal in/cal out. HOWEVER, how do you account for people with metabolic disorders or food allergies or sensitivities? What about endo/ecto/mesomorphs who clearly respond to calories differently from each other. Clearly we don't ALL work the same, or none of those would exist.
Do most people use the "special snowflake" idea as an excuse? Yep. Are there some circumstances where there may be some validity to that claim? Also yep.
I don't know why there needs to be such hostility though... chill out yall, it's just food.
Even with the people who have conditions that might slow weight loss or make it a bit more tricky, it's still all about Calories In vs. Calories Out. Will they lose weight as quickly or in the exact same way as other people? No. But they will still lose weight.
so what you're saying is, even though the law of thermodynamics remains constant, the experience of weight loss varies from person to person? meaning that some have different experiences than others? some may have to work harder than others to achieve their goals? just want to clarify.
I never said anywhere in this thread that speed of results wouldn't vary. I'm just saying caloric deficit = weight loss. Caloric surplus = weight gain.
ok so then we agree that everyone may have different experiences as they try to reach their goals, including some whose bodies and metabolism may make it more difficult than it is for others.
for example, it's quite hard for me to gain weight, because in order to eat more calories than I burn I need to be eating 3500+ cal/day. Does the law of thermodynamics apply to me the same way it does to you? Of course it does, but that doesn't mean it's equally difficult for me to gain weight as for you to gain weight.0 -
and again my point is why the need to try to belittle people about it? where's the helpfulness in it? what's the point in it?
The point is that the Internet is anonymous and people can say whatever they want and not suffer any kind of real repercussions for it. The keyboard doesn't fight back. And people (sadly) like to put other people down. I think they feel better about themselves when they can think they're "right" about something.
I'm not taking a side in the snowflake argument other than to say that we are pretty much alike with minor differences... but then again, so are snowflakes. :happy: I know what works for me and I don't really have any interest in anyone agreeing with me or proving myself right, other than to myself.
I just think it's really un-fun to participate in discussions where all civility and decorum is lost.0 -
ALL of my weight loss and fitness success came after I accepted that I wasn't a special snowflake. Almost everything I learned about weight loss and fitness, I learned from people who emphasized that point.
Just curious, what did you think was special about you before?
I used a lot of the standard lines, especially in my own mind. Like: "I'm not fat, I'm just big boned", "I have a genetic predisposition to be this size", and "I probably can't lose weight because I think I have a slow metabolism". Turns out none of that actually applied to me, and the whole "eat less, move more" thing actually did work just fine.
That's not to say that there aren't people out there who have real medical issues that make it much more difficult to lose weight or require a very different approach to succeed. If someone has put a real effort into calorie tracking and eating at a realistic deficit and is having trouble losing weight, I encourage them to see their doctor and figure out what the issue is.0 -
This may sound strange, but I actually like this thread.
When I first started trying to lose weight, I believed myself to be special and that my situation was different than everyone else. While there are differences in why I'm working so hard and some of the 'good' foods I have to avoid, I had to accept that the basic principals were still the same. The biggest difference is that I have to calculate 700 calories into my day that I can't (or don't know how to) log. Once I figured out that I was honestly more like everyone else than I had wanted to admit, I started seeing success.0 -
We are all different. But we're not THAT different. Science still applies. If our bodies were all drastically different, our doctors would have a heck of a time treating us. Think about it. Any treatment or prescription someone receives exists because it was tested across the board on large groups of people and was shown to be successful for its intended purposes.
The same applies to weight loss.
We are all different behaviorally and psychologically, and we may require different approaches to reach our goals. But physiologically, we're all pretty much the same, and weight loss comes down to being in a caloric deficit. It's simple, and that's actually a really great thing.
This ^^^^
It's important to understand that while in *some* respects we are all different, in a lot of respects we're all pretty much alike. In fact we're about 98.8% similar to chimpanzees. Chimpanzee metabolism and medicine isn't all that different to human metabolism and medicine. If a chimp was obese, it would get thin through a calorie deficit too. So we're not even special snowflakes when compared to other animals.
Also, while we're all saying that calories in v calories out is what's necessary for everyone (and even animals too) for fat loss.... individual differences in height, frame size, lean body mass and hormonal factors that can affect metabolic rate mean that the exact number of calories you need to eat to lose weight steadily without feeling constantly hungry is a little different for everyone, hence the advice to use a calorie calculator as a starting point, rather than eating at a "one size fits all" number such as 1200 cals/day (a number which, incidentally, is too few calories for the vast majority of people) - because one number does not fit all.
Calories in versus calories out is true for everyone, just as it's true for everyone that if you jump off a building you fall downwards and hit the ground. In both cases, it follows the laws of physics. There may be cases where it *seems* to not be working, e.g. metabolic issues, but what happens there is that the calories out part of the equation is lower than it should be, and usually you need to fix this and get the body back to burning the right number of calories, so the person can lose weight while eating enough food to be properly nourished, rather than just eating even less to make the calories in lower than the calories out, which may actually make the metabolic problem worse, and also puts you at risk of malnutrition.
the "special snowflake" thing refers to people who think their bodies don't follow the laws of physics. Some people think that if the calorie calculator predicted number does not work for them, that calories in v calories out doesn't work. That's not how it is, the calorie calculator number is just an estimate for a starting point. you have to adjust the number of calories you eat based on real world results, but the general idea is that you find the number of calories for YOU, where you are eating enough that you're satisfied and enjoying all your favourite foods (albeit in smaller portion sizes than before) but you're still eating less than you burn off, so you get slow, steady and sustainable fat loss, without feeling deprived or tortured.0 -
Please tell me where i said anything about calorie deficit not working?
if 100 people ate the exact same things and performed the exact same exercises... nothing less and nothing more. their bodies would not repspond the same.... hence the difference.
people are different, we behave differently, and our bodies react differently to different approaches.
and again my point is why the need to try to belittle people about it? where's the helpfulness in it? what's the point in it?
^ this is true.
Sadly, the argument could easily be settled by saying both sides are right, because they are.
GENERALLY speaking, all humans respond to the "laws of thermodynamics" in the same way. Cal in/cal out. HOWEVER, how do you account for people with metabolic disorders or food allergies or sensitivities? What about endo/ecto/mesomorphs who clearly respond to calories differently from each other. Clearly we don't ALL work the same, or none of those would exist.
Do most people use the "special snowflake" idea as an excuse? Yep. Are there some circumstances where there may be some validity to that claim? Also yep.
I don't know why there needs to be such hostility though... chill out yall, it's just food.
Even with the people who have conditions that might slow weight loss or make it a bit more tricky, it's still all about Calories In vs. Calories Out. Will they lose weight as quickly or in the exact same way as other people? No. But they will still lose weight.
so what you're saying is, even though the law of thermodynamics remains constant, the experience of weight loss varies from person to person? meaning that some have different experiences than others? some may have to work harder than others to achieve their goals? just want to clarify.
I never said anywhere in this thread that speed of results wouldn't vary. I'm just saying caloric deficit = weight loss. Caloric surplus = weight gain.
ok so then we agree that everyone may have different experiences as they try to reach their goals, including some whose bodies and metabolism may make it more difficult than it is for others.
for example, it's quite hard for me to gain weight, because in order to eat more calories than I burn I need to be eating 3500+ cal/day. Does the law of thermodynamics apply to me the same way it does to you? Of course it does, but that doesn't mean it's equally difficult for me to gain weight as for you to gain weight.
Again, I never disagreed with anyone about the speed of weight loss. I simply chimed in to agree with those who were stating that at a basic level, it's all about calories in vs. out.
People are reading into the special snowflake thing far too much. Like I said earlier that term is tossed around for people who are "normal" (i.e.; no conditions that affect their metabolism, etc) who turn around and claim cals in vs. out isn't working for them. I've never seen someone post a thread which specifically outlines medical issues that they have, only to be called a "special snowflake".0 -
Again, I never disagreed with anyone about the speed of weight loss. I simply chimed in to agree with those who were stating that at a basic level, it's all about calories in vs. out.
People are reading into the special snowflake thing far too much. Like I said earlier that term is tossed around for people who are "normal" (i.e.; no conditions that affect their metabolism, etc) who turn around and claim cals in vs. out isn't working for them. I've never seen someone post a thread which specifically outlines medical issues that they have, only to be called a "special snowflake".
fair, and no I wasn't referring to your post as harassment, though I did quote it - my bad there.
my whole thing in all of this is why does the OP have to get harassed to such an extent for asking a simple question that could've been answered without everyone piling on and throwing their favorite .gifs and memes on board?
we're all the same and we're all different. it's both - that's the reality. no memes necessary.0 -
"We are all different. But we're not THAT different. Science still applies. If our bodies were all drastically different, our doctors would have a heck of a time treating us. Think about it. Any treatment or prescription someone receives exists because it was tested across the board on large groups of people and was shown to be successful for its intended purposes. "
Note that 'testing' of new products/medicines/drugs will predominantly only show that pills/methods are better than placebo, rather than better than the best medicine currently out there. To compare new with old is a riskier proposition. Only releasing the data/research that shows the positive effects is also the norm. Just a thought on a side topic.
-- On topic, getting into the 'how different' category is really hard without quantifying things. While calories in vs out is simple, and likely true, it's very difficult to be the judge of the 'out' part of that equation, and hormones beyond our control affect it (not determine, but for instance, twitching will be reduced if your body is trying to conserve energy/be at a higher weight set point). I think successful people often forget how hard/scary it is at first to lose weight and change eating habits.
I do wish that the cookie cutter estimates that MFP used could be more readily changed. Currently that must be done in the custom settings, which is a bit cumbersome. If someone is consistently eating at a calorie level, and the weight is not changing, then being able to adjust what our actual energy expenditure/calories in should be would be a nice feature.
^100% agreed. I think sometimes people who have been successful forget what it was like to start losing weight; they turn into the people that used to criticize them for being fat. I honestly thought this site would be more inspirational that a skinny person who was once fat, telling me I'm lazy and think I'm special.
Secondly, don't even begin talking about "prescriptions" because not all drugs are tested in huge populations. Secondly, they are mostly studied in healthy people. Third, women have just started to be included in studies in the last decade or so. And it is hard to prescribe medications because everyone is NOT biologically same. If everyone's body was the same, we could use one dosage form, one route, and one frequency. This is not the case.
Third, genetics? Yes, the majority of our genetic code is made up on similar alleles. However, it is the genetic attributes that cause disease states, physical traits, etc. The reason why we can have children without in-breeding complications is that our partner has a different genetic makeup.
So yes, humans have characteristics that are universal. But we also have characteristics that make us different. I think for some people, it is much easier to simplify the weight situation but it's not that easy. I'm not saying that me being different from anyone on here should be a reason I can't lose weight. For weight loss the general saying, "eat less and move more" works but some people need a little extra help. But as far as the human body, it is NOT that simple.0 -
Genetics are a lot more complicated than hair and eye colour. Because you probably don't want me to launch into a huge lecture on human genetics, I am going to link to an article that breaks it up pretty nicely.
Yes, you look different than the guy standing next to you in the elevator. No, your body is not different in terms of how it functions. As the article says, "Almost all human genetic variation is relatively insignificant biologically— that is, it has no apparent adaptive significance."
http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/genetic/guide/genetic_variation1.htm
Almost all...
That sounds like it is relatively significant for a few people, one might even call them "special", like a snowflake.
Mmmm, no, it states that very little of the variation has adaptive significance. It doesn't imply anything about how the distribution of people affected by a particular advantage/disadvantage. Could be fairly even, ie, not "special".0 -
Again, I never disagreed with anyone about the speed of weight loss. I simply chimed in to agree with those who were stating that at a basic level, it's all about calories in vs. out.
People are reading into the special snowflake thing far too much. Like I said earlier that term is tossed around for people who are "normal" (i.e.; no conditions that affect their metabolism, etc) who turn around and claim cals in vs. out isn't working for them. I've never seen someone post a thread which specifically outlines medical issues that they have, only to be called a "special snowflake".
fair, and no I wasn't referring to your post as harassment, though I did quote it - my bad there.
my whole thing in all of this is why does the OP have to get harassed to such an extent for asking a simple question that could've been answered without everyone piling on and throwing their favorite .gifs and memes on board?
we're all the same and we're all different. it's both - that's the reality. no memes necessary.
I don't think really anything in this thread qualifies as harassment. There were no personal attacks made- simply people discussing their opinion. At best, this thread qualifies as "heated".
As for the GIFs and Memes... this is the internet. Memes are always necessary. :glasses:0 -
"We are all different. But we're not THAT different. Science still applies. If our bodies were all drastically different, our doctors would have a heck of a time treating us. Think about it. Any treatment or prescription someone receives exists because it was tested across the board on large groups of people and was shown to be successful for its intended purposes. "
Note that 'testing' of new products/medicines/drugs will predominantly only show that pills/methods are better than placebo, rather than better than the best medicine currently out there. To compare new with old is a riskier proposition. Only releasing the data/research that shows the positive effects is also the norm. Just a thought on a side topic.
It was a very broad example. But my point wasn't at all about prescription drugs. My point was that if our bodies were really that significantly different, medical science wouldn't be applicable.0 -
I agree, I hate that quote with a passion, but that may be because I hate Fight Club.0
-
The problem with this link:
is that he says we're not different, then lists all the ways we are, in fact, different. Metabolic rate is the biggest way we're all different. Even within a given group of 6'0" 200lb men of roughly the same BF%, chances are there will be a significant difference in metabolic rate.
The title of the article *should* be "you are not immune to science". That part is resoundingly true. I love Lyle McDonald's work, but in this case his intent is being misconstrued by those who use the "special snowflake" comment judiciously.0 -
last I check we were all created differently otherwise we'd have to walk around with our full names tattooed on our foreheads so that we could tell one another apart.
I wish someone would walk around with their name tattooed on their forehead, lol.0 -
last I check we were all created differently otherwise we'd have to walk around with our full names tattooed on our foreheads so that we could tell one another apart.
I wish someone would walk around with their name tattooed on their forehead, lol.
Not her own name, but close enough.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions