The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
I was disappointed that "moving the goalposts" wasn't in that debating guide, it is so relentlessly repeated I am sure that it was inspired by a similar "Debating 101" source. It just shows that sometimes jargon can be mistaken for substance.
Did I miss the part where you added substance to this thread?
And when you say "jargon" do you mean phrases like "anti-clean-eating"?
I'm sure you did miss the substance. It was a nuanced post, and those who were intended to get it got it, sorry.
Oh look. Subtle inferences that I am of a lesser intelligence veiled in poorly worded sarcasm. Bish, please.
Bambi likes to bicker...
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
I was disappointed that "moving the goalposts" wasn't in that debating guide, it is so relentlessly repeated I am sure that it was inspired by a similar "Debating 101" source. It just shows that sometimes jargon can be mistaken for substance.
Did I miss the part where you added substance to this thread?
And when you say "jargon" do you mean phrases like "anti-clean-eating"?
I'm sure you did miss the substance. It was a nuanced post, and those who were intended to get it got it, sorry.
Oh look. Subtle inferences that I am of a lesser intelligence veiled in poorly worded sarcasm. Bish, please.
Lol it was an implication and it was far from subtle.
You're right. Implication was a better word. It must have been my processed food brain fog.
you should try some clean eating for that. I hear good things0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Is it time for a tin foil hat picture? I just can't get over the idea that people applying logic in discussions is now presumed by their opponents to be, as a matter of course, from a web site, and that none of those people have any skills, education, or knowledge from any other source.
It's gotta be a conspiracy of IIFYM of brainless sheeple, spouting doctrine. No other possibility could exist.
What the actual...
Let's throw in a heaping dash of irony, considering the fact that clean and Paleo eaters are all spouting dogma gleaned from books, blogs, and websites.
Dude, you mean you don't attend the weekly IIFYM website party?
I mean, that's where I got all of my learning. About everything. Certainly not from my years of schooling and research-based thesis writing.
Today's the first day I've seen that page. I had no idea. Teach me the secret handshake?
The password is door guy asks.
SO what is clean eating?
"Wash your produce"
Am I in?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.0 -
So, I'm starting to think, from the turn of this thread, that person A is either intimidated by the use of logic and resorts to ad hominems to discredit person B when he uses logic when they are discussing their food plans OR he just can't support his assertions about the health claims he's been making.
It hasn't passed my notice that none of the questions about health have been answered.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
you seem really focused on reiterating the fact that the IIFYM website is not the only place to learn about logic
and discussing your logic skillz0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
The truth is that referencing logical fallacies is really common during online debates of contentious issues. I participate in many communities to debate non-nutritional issues and they all seem to use them. And there is nothing nefarious about people in the communities developing an "explainer" page to help others who are newer to the debates understand common fallacies. It's an internet thing, not an "anti-clean eating" thing.
Edit: It probably isn't even an internet thing. Before the internet people were probably putting these together and distributing them in other ways.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I don't find it odd. Just about every group with a strongly held viewpoint has talking points. E-mail and blog posts are a common way to disseminate them these days. Go google "talking points" and "clean eating" or paleo or whatever non-IIFYM diet you like and you'll find a bunch.
As for point 2), those terms are formalized definitions that many of us (of a certain age, at least) learned in high school. They're almost identical to the definitions on wikipedia. Of course they're going to be used almost word-for-word.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »So, I'm starting to think, from the turn of this thread, that person A is either intimidated by the use of logic and resorts to ad hominems to discredit person B when he uses logic when they are discussing their food plans OR he just can't support his assertions about the health claims he's been making.
It hasn't passed my notice that none of the questions about health have been answered.
I thought the answer was C...0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
A few years ago, during the course of a few weeks, 20-30 national different news anchors and talk show hosts used the word "gravitas". Someone put together a montage of news clips, just one person after another saying "gravitas", it was hilarious. Sure, some of them possibly legitimately knew the word, but the fact that a bunch of people use the same obscure word within the same span of time to describe similar events is not a coincidence, it is a pattern. "Look everyone, I discovered a cool word"! "Hey, I want to use a cool word too!"
This IIFYM site is the same thing, it isn't garden-variety debate knowledge everyone is utilizing, somebody provided talking points on how to debate a certain way, and a lot of people practically copied and pasted it into social media forums. Please review that website, it is pretty obvious.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
Again, what's an anti-clean eater?
And perhaps the talking point are used over and over because all of you anti-fun eating people try and use the same tired "logic" to try and participate in discussions.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
you seem really focused on reiterating the fact that the IIFYM website is not the only place to learn about logic
and discussing your logic skillz
Eh, try again. I'm baffled, frankly. Have any of you people ever been anywhere else on the internet?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
A few years ago, during the course of a few weeks, 20-30 national different news anchors and talk show hosts used the word "gravitas". Someone put together a montage of news clips, just one person after another saying "gravitas", it was hilarious. Sure, some of them possibly legitimately knew the word, but the fact that a bunch of people use the same obscure word within the same span of time to describe similar events is not a coincidence, it is a pattern. "Look everyone, I discovered a cool word"! "Hey, I want to use a cool word too!"
This IIFYM site is the same thing, it isn't garden-variety debate knowledge everyone is utilizing, somebody provided talking points on how to debate a certain way, and a lot of people practically copied and pasted it into social media forums. Please review that website, it is pretty obvious.
you will learn all of those fallacies in the first month of a freshman logic course
or in the first 5 minutes of looking up "list of fallacies" on Wikipedia0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
The truth is that referencing logical fallacies is really common during online debates of contentious issues. I participate in many communities to debate non-nutritional issues and they all seem to use them. And there is nothing nefarious about people in the communities developing an "explainer" page to help others who are newer to the debates understand common fallacies. It's an internet thing, not an "anti-clean eating" thing.
Edit: It probably isn't even an internet thing. Before the internet people were probably putting these together and distributing them in other ways.
Life before the internet? Huh?
My younger sister asked me the other day what it was like growing up before computers were invented.0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So, I'm starting to think, from the turn of this thread, that person A is either intimidated by the use of logic and resorts to ad hominems to discredit person B when he uses logic when they are discussing their food plans OR he just can't support his assertions about the health claims he's been making.
It hasn't passed my notice that none of the questions about health have been answered.
I thought the answer was C...
Well, the weight loss thing sort of got answered by default, but then the clean eating defenders started asserting that A would be "healthier". Some support for that position was asked for and was never provided.
It has to be remembered that it was stipulated that both A and B were hitting their macros and micros.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions