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.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
I don't do "accessory" lifts...waste of time IMO...what's the point they don't help me achieve my goals...notice how that can be turned around using your logic
Calories are a unit of measure and if a carb impacts "YOUR" goal that's one thing but for the majority of people it is a fact...and a calorie is just that...a calorie...but not sure that this is "unpopular" just debated a lot...
PED's are a personal choice IMO...if you want to pump your body full of those things go ahead...but they are just as dangerous when abused as any other drug...including alcohol...again not that unpopular just those who want to use them vs those who don't are sure they are right.
As for your last statement...are you saying that you wouldn't heed the advice of someone like oh..Arnold? he's not where you want to be...but probably was at some point...
regardless of if someone now doesn't "look" how you think they should be doesn't mean they don't have good advice...
I mean I know people who look good...and I wouldn't listen to their drivel ever...
15 -
The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
All of this x 2 Although I don't care much about the water since it takes me 24 hours to drop 1lb of water vs a week to lose 1lb of fat lol
Totally agree about the PED. "I'm no cheater" but I'll drink 12 MGD cause it's Friday; that's legal3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I think that we in the UK have refrigerated ready meals that are just as healthful as home made. And a wide variety. They are not packed with salt as always asserted and are made shelf stable by carefully controlling the temperature during cooking. Literally the same as you could make at home from an ingredients perspective. And they range from indulgent right the way through to low calorie and gluten free etc, budget to splurge. I actually think some people would eat better if they used these meals more!
We have these in the U.S., too! Grocery stores have fresh-pack meals that are the same as what a person would make at home. They're not preserved or shelf-stable. They're made with fresh ingredients at the grocery store and sold the same day out of a cooler case. The other day, I was in a hurry so I got a meal from the grocery store that had chicken breast with prosciutto, basil, and fontina cheese with a big side serving of broccolini.
3 -
Actually fast food would be under "less nutritious" and not "bad". If it were "bad", then ANYONE who ate it would suffer the same as everyone else and that's NOT the case. There are lots and lots of fit people that can eat fast food and not suffer from it. Elite athletes, people who consistently stay in shape, and people who have it moderately are good examples.
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
Now consuming nothing but fast food in a surplus and not meeting your nutritional requirements, that would be "bad" health wise.
And I'd definitely pick fast food over other food preferences as a last resort. Liver doesn't appeal to many, but a cheeseburger would.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
12 -
I am a Splenda user...you would literally have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. I had a coworker tell me how bad it is for me and even send me an article about how it causes cancer...I still use it, and love it.22
-
inkedillini26 wrote: »I am a Splenda user...you would literally have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. I had a coworker tell me how bad it is for me and even send me an article about how it causes cancer...I still use it, and love it.
I wonder how many times said co-worker drinks booze *eyeroll* So annoying lol12 -
The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
I don't do "accessory" lifts...waste of time IMO...what's the point they don't help me achieve my goals...notice how that can be turned around using your logic
Calories are a unit of measure and if a carb impacts "YOUR" goal that's one thing but for the majority of people it is a fact...and a calorie is just that...a calorie...but not sure that this is "unpopular" just debated a lot...
PED's are a personal choice IMO...if you want to pump your body full of those things go ahead...but they are just as dangerous when abused as any other drug...including alcohol...again not that unpopular just those who want to use them vs those who don't are sure they are right.
As for your last statement...are you saying that you wouldn't heed the advice of someone like oh..Arnold? he's not where you want to be...but probably was at some point...
regardless of if someone now doesn't "look" how you think they should be doesn't mean they don't have good advice...
I mean I know people who look good...and I wouldn't listen to their drivel ever...
If creating a stronger mind muscle connection isn't part of your goals when you lift then I don't really know what to say to you, regardless, isolation exercises will achieve just that. Note how I don't say omit compounds.
Why do you mention a carb? Could be anything that causes the water retention. My point is 500 calories of McDonalds will have a more detrimental effect on the appearance of my physique than 500 calories of chicken and rice, regardless if the macro's are the same. IDC that they will both have the same effect on fat levels, I care about water retention too.
The point I'm making about PED's has gone completely over your head. Yes I realise they can be just as dangerous as almost any drug, it's the fact there is a huge social stigma attached to taking them that I take issue with.
It isn't about someone looking how 'I think' they should look. People can look however they want but if you're going to be doling out lifting advice AND telling other people they're wrong then yes, look the part. I'm interested in someone who's put the practical work in and actually lived it rather than geeked out on the theory but not actually gone and put the work in. This forum is a meme at this point for that one. Also again...note how I said I nearly always, not always because of course there are exceptions to the rule but I didn't think I need to put that so clearly...3 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »I am a Splenda user...you would literally have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. I had a coworker tell me how bad it is for me and even send me an article about how it causes cancer...I still use it, and love it.
I wonder how many times said co-worker drinks booze *eyeroll* So annoying lol
In all fairness you would also have to pry wine out of my cold, dead hands...and honestly even then I would probably still fight you somehow...sooooooo lol16 -
inkedillini26 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »I am a Splenda user...you would literally have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. I had a coworker tell me how bad it is for me and even send me an article about how it causes cancer...I still use it, and love it.
I wonder how many times said co-worker drinks booze *eyeroll* So annoying lol
In all fairness you would also have to pry wine out of my cold, dead hands...and honestly even then I would probably still fight you somehow...sooooooo lol
I'm not even complaining but I have a co-worker that does the same to me about the TWO Splendas I use in my morning coffee and *kitten* I've seen your IG, I know you were puking Satruday and probably got Herpes too lol12 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.
Many people who claim we should be able to "intuitively eat" mean we should be able to just eat and not have to every think about it and we just won't want to eat too much. That's what I think is unrealistic.
I can maintain or lose without counting, but I do other things, like watch portion sizes, avoid snacking (or actively pay attention and compensate), make sure I am reasonably active. But that's something more than just going by "instinct." It's mindful.
I guess it's just semantics but I think mindful eating and intuitive eating are the same thing. Intuition is something that must be mindfully adhered to. It's usually by ignoring our intuition that we run into problems.
I think some people use intuitive eating to mean the same thing as mindful eating, although I prefer the latter term.
However, as GottaBurnEm noted, there have been people lately claiming that it's some sign that humans are messed up that we have to think about it at all, and that means that only sick people (or mentally ill) get fat or some such nonsense. In accordance with that some use the term "intuitive eating" to mean "don't have to think about it."
Well 'some people' pretty much kidnap and ruin every single term that relates to diet, don't they? I would say intuitive eating is 'not having to think about it much'. It's not mindless eating, it's just listening to your intuition when it comes to eating. Which may be a learning process if you are used to mindlessly eating everything that your taste buds might desire.2 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »I am a Splenda user...you would literally have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. I had a coworker tell me how bad it is for me and even send me an article about how it causes cancer...I still use it, and love it.
I wonder how many times said co-worker drinks booze *eyeroll* So annoying lol
In all fairness you would also have to pry wine out of my cold, dead hands...and honestly even then I would probably still fight you somehow...sooooooo lol
I'm not even complaining but I have a co-worker that does the same to me about the TWO Splendas I use in my morning coffee and *kitten* I've seen your IG, I know you were puking Satruday and probably got Herpes too lol
My ex friend always told me how bad my diet Pepsi was for me and how it is linked to cancer. She is a pack a day smoker.....27 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »I am a Splenda user...you would literally have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. I had a coworker tell me how bad it is for me and even send me an article about how it causes cancer...I still use it, and love it.
I wonder how many times said co-worker drinks booze *eyeroll* So annoying lol
In all fairness you would also have to pry wine out of my cold, dead hands...and honestly even then I would probably still fight you somehow...sooooooo lol
I'm not even complaining but I have a co-worker that does the same to me about the TWO Splendas I use in my morning coffee and *kitten* I've seen your IG, I know you were puking Satruday and probably got Herpes too lolsingingflutelady wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »I am a Splenda user...you would literally have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. I had a coworker tell me how bad it is for me and even send me an article about how it causes cancer...I still use it, and love it.
I wonder how many times said co-worker drinks booze *eyeroll* So annoying lol
In all fairness you would also have to pry wine out of my cold, dead hands...and honestly even then I would probably still fight you somehow...sooooooo lol
I'm not even complaining but I have a co-worker that does the same to me about the TWO Splendas I use in my morning coffee and *kitten* I've seen your IG, I know you were puking Satruday and probably got Herpes too lol
My ex friend always told me how bad my diet Pepsi was for me and how it is linked to cancer. She is a pack a day smoker.....
The irony. Humans are insane. Let me have my splenda and my occasional glass of wine.5 -
Actually fast food would be under "less nutritious" and not "bad". If it were "bad", then ANYONE who ate it would suffer the same as everyone else and that's NOT the case. There are lots and lots of fit people that can eat fast food and not suffer from it. Elite athletes, people who consistently stay in shape, and people who have it moderately are good examples.
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
Now consuming nothing but fast food in a surplus and not meeting your nutritional requirements, that would be "bad" health wise.
And I'd definitely pick fast food over other food preferences as a last resort. Liver doesn't appeal to many, but a cheeseburger would.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Less nutritious could easily fall under the definition of "bad". Bad has many meanings and not all = harmful. Poor quality, substandard, imperfect, inadequate, etc. These are all definitions of "bad".5 -
But not all people lift to make the mind/muscle connection a part of the goal. Some do it just to be active and keep basic strength up. Not all people are looking to increase mass nor have prominent body parts.The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
I don't do "accessory" lifts...waste of time IMO...what's the point they don't help me achieve my goals...notice how that can be turned around using your logic
Calories are a unit of measure and if a carb impacts "YOUR" goal that's one thing but for the majority of people it is a fact...and a calorie is just that...a calorie...but not sure that this is "unpopular" just debated a lot...
PED's are a personal choice IMO...if you want to pump your body full of those things go ahead...but they are just as dangerous when abused as any other drug...including alcohol...again not that unpopular just those who want to use them vs those who don't are sure they are right.
As for your last statement...are you saying that you wouldn't heed the advice of someone like oh..Arnold? he's not where you want to be...but probably was at some point...
regardless of if someone now doesn't "look" how you think they should be doesn't mean they don't have good advice...
I mean I know people who look good...and I wouldn't listen to their drivel ever...
If creating a stronger mind muscle connection isn't part of your goals when you lift then I don't really know what to say to you, regardless, isolation exercises will achieve just that. Note how I don't say omit compounds.
But that doesn't change the fact that a calorie is a calorie. A liter of gas is different than a liter of water, but they are both still a liter. WHAT they do for someone is entirely different.Why do you mention a carb? Could be anything that causes the water retention. My point is 500 calories of McDonalds will have a more detrimental effect on the appearance of my physique than 500 calories of chicken and rice, regardless if the macro's are the same. IDC that they will both have the same effect on fat levels, I care about water retention too.
I won't disagree here. The REAL issue with them is when KIDS are illegally taking them just to enhance their sports performance with no actual medical advice.The point I'm making about PED's has gone completely over your head. Yes I realise they can be just as dangerous as almost any drug, it's the fact there is a huge social stigma attached to taking them that I take issue with.
Well there are lots and lots of coaches out there who may not have played at a high level in a sport, but intricately know how to coach it. Look at coaching specialists like Hany Rambod. NEVER competed on the professional stage and I would hardly thought he was nothing more than a bro gym lifter based on his physique. You can actually figure out if someone really knows what they are talking about or not on here though.It isn't about someone looking how 'I think' they should look. People can look however they want but if you're going to be doling out lifting advice AND telling other people they're wrong then yes, look the part. I'm interested in someone who's put the practical work in and actually lived it rather than geeked out on the theory but not actually gone and put the work in. This forum is a meme at this point for that one. Also again...note how I said I nearly always, not always because of course there are exceptions to the rule but I didn't think I need to put that so clearly...
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
9 -
singingflutelady wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »inkedillini26 wrote: »I am a Splenda user...you would literally have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. I had a coworker tell me how bad it is for me and even send me an article about how it causes cancer...I still use it, and love it.
I wonder how many times said co-worker drinks booze *eyeroll* So annoying lol
In all fairness you would also have to pry wine out of my cold, dead hands...and honestly even then I would probably still fight you somehow...sooooooo lol
I'm not even complaining but I have a co-worker that does the same to me about the TWO Splendas I use in my morning coffee and *kitten* I've seen your IG, I know you were puking Satruday and probably got Herpes too lol
My ex friend always told me how bad my diet Pepsi was for me and how it is linked to cancer. She is a pack a day smoker.....
Omg my ex co worker said this about my Diet Red Bull.... yet a pack or more a day smoker.7 -
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.4 -
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
Mmm deep fried cancer sticks.34 -
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-66543295 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?11 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal7 -
The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
I don't do "accessory" lifts...waste of time IMO...what's the point they don't help me achieve my goals...notice how that can be turned around using your logic
Calories are a unit of measure and if a carb impacts "YOUR" goal that's one thing but for the majority of people it is a fact...and a calorie is just that...a calorie...but not sure that this is "unpopular" just debated a lot...
PED's are a personal choice IMO...if you want to pump your body full of those things go ahead...but they are just as dangerous when abused as any other drug...including alcohol...again not that unpopular just those who want to use them vs those who don't are sure they are right.
As for your last statement...are you saying that you wouldn't heed the advice of someone like oh..Arnold? he's not where you want to be...but probably was at some point...
regardless of if someone now doesn't "look" how you think they should be doesn't mean they don't have good advice...
I mean I know people who look good...and I wouldn't listen to their drivel ever...
If creating a stronger mind muscle connection isn't part of your goals when you lift then I don't really know what to say to you, regardless, isolation exercises will achieve just that. Note how I don't say omit compounds.
Why do you mention a carb? Could be anything that causes the water retention. My point is 500 calories of McDonalds will have a more detrimental effect on the appearance of my physique than 500 calories of chicken and rice, regardless if the macro's are the same. IDC that they will both have the same effect on fat levels, I care about water retention too.
The point I'm making about PED's has gone completely over your head. Yes I realise they can be just as dangerous as almost any drug, it's the fact there is a huge social stigma attached to taking them that I take issue with.
It isn't about someone looking how 'I think' they should look. People can look however they want but if you're going to be doling out lifting advice AND telling other people they're wrong then yes, look the part. I'm interested in someone who's put the practical work in and actually lived it rather than geeked out on the theory but not actually gone and put the work in. This forum is a meme at this point for that one. Also again...note how I said I nearly always, not always because of course there are exceptions to the rule but I didn't think I need to put that so clearly...
No it didn't...
I get what you mean...stigma attached to one thing that is "potential dangerous" vs another thing...aka PED vs Beer I think is dependent on where you are...there isn't a stigma where I live really except for those who want to compete in natural comps.
I did say it's not as unpopular as you think just those who use vs those who don't are so sure that their side is correct that it seems unpopular.
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal
It's a business rag, not even a scientific journal. Besides, even if it us true this one man lost weight (#1 only) eating only McDonalds doesn't mean he did it eating only fast food as McDonalds sells non fast food ( i.e. Salads, carrot sticks, etc) as well as fast food. Secondly, a sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant. No actual scientific study can publish with n=1.7 -
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
Yes they have...I can do up a sample menu of just McDonalds where my Macros are met..and they are not minimums and I would stay in goal for calories too...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
http://www.today.com/health/man-loses-56-pounds-after-eating-only-mcdonalds-six-months-2D79329158
http://www.eatthis.com/what-diet-experts-eat-mcdonalds6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal
It's a business rag, not even a scientific journal. Besides, even if it us true this one man lost weight (#1 only) eating only McDonalds doesn't mean he did it eating only fast food as McDonalds sells non fast food ( i.e. Salads, carrot sticks, etc) as well as fast food. Secondly, a sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant. No actual scientific study can publish with n=1.
How is a burger from McDonalds fast food, but a salad from McDonalds isn't fast food?31 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet.
Menopause or not, you still will lose weight if you eat 1500 calories, and burn 2000 calories.
Perhaps. You will lose fat. But not necessarily weight. Menopause plays all kinds of fun games with your hormones.
Um, what?
If you eat in a deficit, you will lose weight. That weight will come from fat, muscle, or both. Regardless of hormones. The proportions may be different.
However, if what you say is true, menopause + deficit would be awesome! Body fat only, and you keep all of your muscle, or since you're losing fat, but not weight, you must be putting muscle on!1 -
coreyreichle wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »WayTooHonest wrote: »826_Midazaslam wrote: »Blaming your metabolism is such a cop-out.
Nothing drives me crazier than someone telling me they can't lose ANY weight because their metabolism is too slow. It's simple, CICO. Yes there are cellular differences in how your body metabolizes things, but at the end of the day, if you burn 2000 calories and only put in 1500, you're going to lose weight. Your metabolism is not some magical thing that defies the laws of thermodynamics.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you obviously haven't hit menopause yet.
Menopause or not, you still will lose weight if you eat 1500 calories, and burn 2000 calories.
Perhaps. You will lose fat. But not necessarily weight. Menopause plays all kinds of fun games with your hormones.
Um, what?
If you eat in a deficit, you will lose weight. That weight will come from fat, muscle, or both. Regardless of hormones. The proportions may be different.
However, if what you say is true, menopause + deficit would be awesome! Body fat only, and you keep all of your muscle, or since you're losing fat, but not weight, you must be putting muscle on!
Nope. Already had this discussion a couple of pages back, but weight is not just fat and muscle.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal
It's a business rag, not even a scientific journal. Besides, even if it us true this one man lost weight (#1 only) eating only McDonalds doesn't mean he did it eating only fast food as McDonalds sells non fast food ( i.e. Salads, carrot sticks, etc) as well as fast food. Secondly, a sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant. No actual scientific study can publish with n=1.
What are the specific carcinogens and toxins in a McDonald's hamburger. I want names please.13 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal
It's a business rag, not even a scientific journal. Besides, even if it us true this one man lost weight (#1 only) eating only McDonalds doesn't mean he did it eating only fast food as McDonalds sells non fast food ( i.e. Salads, carrot sticks, etc) as well as fast food. Secondly, a sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant. No actual scientific study can publish with n=1.
Well it is up to you to prove your stance then not up to us...
YOu show us scientific journals that state fast food is toxic.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal
It's a business rag, not even a scientific journal. Besides, even if it us true this one man lost weight (#1 only) eating only McDonalds doesn't mean he did it eating only fast food as McDonalds sells non fast food ( i.e. Salads, carrot sticks, etc) as well as fast food. Secondly, a sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant. No actual scientific study can publish with n=1.
If McDonalds sells it... It's fast food... that's the definition of fast food..18 -
I don't think lifting heavy things and putting them down again makes you a more virtuous person, and I feel no moral obligation to do anything with a barbell.34
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions