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?

15681011358

Replies

  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    edited June 2017
    tattygun wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tattygun wrote: »
    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.

  • coreyreichle
    coreyreichle Posts: 1,039 Member
    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!
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    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.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
    Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.

    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

    9285851.png


    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.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    edited June 2017
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
    Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.

    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

    9285851.png


    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..

    lol exactly.

    salads imo are "fast food" anyway...doesn't take much to throw one together.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,736 Member
    edited June 2017
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
    Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.

    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

    9285851.png


    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..

    exactly and some of their salads are outrageous as far as calories etc.

    Some of their salads have more FAT than their burgers.

    And Replace McDonald's with BK, Wendy's Hardee's, Jack, Sonic, Chic-Fil-A, etc.

    DQ falls into a sort of gap.... franchise/chain diner Like Waffle House/IHOP
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Macy9336 wrote: »
    I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
    Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.

    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

    9285851.png


    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..

    Well, even if we go by whatever definition they prefer, I'll just leave this out there (not what I would call nutritionally devoid):
    kdp6m95y9g6m.jpg

    eh...McDonalds double has different stats than this

    370 calories 21g protein 860 sodium.

    I would eat it and I never eat there.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    CSARdiver 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.

    I'm not slamming the term intuitive eating. The point I was agreeing with (and how this started) was that there's no reason to think that humans would normally, without thinking, be able to just eat whatever we want in a situation of surplus and not gain. That was the point being made, the person called it "intuitive eating." You think that's not really intuitive eating? Great, that isn't the bit that interests me. (For once I don't have strong opinions about semantics.) ;-)

    I would say that what works for me (mindful eating) isn't about listening to my "intuition" at all, my intuition has nothing to do with it. It's using judgment and reason when it comes to how much I should be eating in a day, which I find is easy when I mostly eat to a usual schedule, am reasonably active, and don't snack much, pay attention to the amounts I eat, understand what is more calorie dense, stuff like that. I don't think of that as "intuitive" (although I don't eat identically every day, of course), but more mindful, like I said, being aware both of what works for me and of what I'm eating (which also includes focusing on enjoyment).

    I don't have a problem with "intuitive eating" as I know it's a term that means a lot of different things. I have a problem (again) with the idea that if only we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. That strikes me as bunk for many or most people.

    I've never seen anyone use the term "intuitive eating" to mean that if we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. I would agree that's so ridiculous that's it's funny.

    But your second paragraph makes some good points on the differences between mindful eating and intuitive eating. I tend to think of them as the same, but I guess intuitive eating is eating a diet you know to be healthy without a lot of thought, though certainly not without a lot of knowledge. At some point you would have to learn what a healthy diet is for it to become intuitive.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,933 Member
    Also, proof or "proof". Cause there's "proof" the earth is flat but no proof.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536194

    To be fair, there's no proof the sun will rise tomorrow, and there's no proof that if I drop a glass if water it will fall downward. But there's proof that there is an infinite set of prime numbers.
This discussion has been closed.