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?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?
Let me revise my time period - the period before man invented hydrogenated vegetable oil and Yellow #5.
4 -
Motorsheen wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »Idancefit2015 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Humans are not meant to travel in space and we still do...
And that is that same how...???
If we were not meant to do it than we should not, right?
I never said that people are wrong for eating it. I really don't care who eats what but this is an opinion board and I was adding mine... that humans aren't made for digesting gluten and dairy. If you do eat it that's your choice and that's fine. I eat it sometimes as well. But gluten is an inflammatory food so if you are sick of having aches and pains that don't seem to have an explanation, you might try cutting out gluten. And if you have issues with acne, bloating, and other hormonal issues, you might try cutting out dairy.
I am not a scientist, just a girl with an opinion... that's what this page is for right? OPINIONS? didn't realize that mine was so personally offensive -_-
The idea that we were made, or created, to do or not do anything in particular and that we should avoid doing that which we were not made to do is inherently a religious argument.
If you scroll up you'll see I already addressed this. Not religious. Just science. Our digestive systems just don't process the food well. And I feel like you haven't read anything I said considering that in my last post I said that there is no wrong in people eating it. I don't have a moral issue with gluten and Dairy lol I was just explaining how it can negatively affect the body and that the simple solution is cutting it out of your diet.
My digestive system is just fine with dairy...I don't think I'm some kind of exception here...I know one person in real life who is lactose intolerant, and I know a lot of people. I know a lot more people who are allergic to nuts (including my own kid) than I do people who are dairy intolerant.
We've been consuming dairy and grains for tens of thousands of years...
Did you ever wonder who was the first guy to look at a cow and think: " Boy, I sure am thirsty ! "
If you're actually wondering, historians say humans started drinking milk from other animals when nursing mothers would die, and it was either let their infants starve or try feeding them what other animals were feeding their babies. It's actually pretty logical, and it tended to work.
It then became more pervasive as people realised it was a cheap, pretty constant source of food. You kill a cow, you get food for a while. You keep one for milking - you have a source of nourishment that keeps giving.10 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?
Let me revise my time period - the period before man invented hydrogenated vegetable oil and Yellow #5.
So nothing to do with dairy, then, which was the specific food under discussion that it was claimed we were not "meant" to consume. That and gluten (also firmly early agriculture, if not before).
On the other hand, there are a number of things from even the later period that I would have a hard time justifying that we are not "meant" to have, like lots of antibiotics.
I don't know anything about whatever debates exist about Yellow Dye # 5, but here is some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine, under the header "myths":
"Rumors began circulating about tartrazine in the 1990s regarding a link to its consumption (specifically its use in Mountain Dew) and adverse effects on male potency, testicle and penis size, and sperm count. There are no documented cases supporting the claim tartrazine will shrink a man's penis or cause it to stop growing."0 -
AvocadNO THANK YOU!!!5
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?
Let me revise my time period - the period before man invented hydrogenated vegetable oil and Yellow #5.
So nothing to do with dairy, then, which was the specific food under discussion that it was claimed we were not "meant" to consume. That and gluten (also firmly early agriculture, if not before).
On the other hand, there are a number of things from even the later period that I would have a hard time justifying that we are not "meant" to have, like lots of antibiotics.
I don't know anything about whatever debates exist about Yellow Dye # 5, but here is some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine, under the header "myths":
"Rumors began circulating about tartrazine in the 1990s regarding a link to its consumption (specifically its use in Mountain Dew) and adverse effects on male potency, testicle and penis size, and sperm count. There are no documented cases supporting the claim tartrazine will shrink a man's penis or cause it to stop growing."
I mentioned agricultural periods of development above because that is when humans began to raise animals instead of just hunting them, and that is when they started consuming the milk of some of these animals. This only started 7-8 thousand years ago - placing that in the context of the millions of years that humans have existed in one form or another, it is a blink of the eye. So I don't think that it is illogical to state that we weren't "meant" to consume animal milk, since it is something that we only "recently" started doing. The same with cooking our food - until fire was discovered we ate raw meat, so given that, in the grand scheme of things, we weren't "meant" to eat our food cooked. It doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Humans and animals are able to consume all sorts of substances that they weren't "meant" to eat - the logic of eating things that were nonexistent through much of evolution varies. I watched a goose in the park the other day eat a cigarette butt. There are boneheads at the beach that feed seagulls french fries. I think we can agree that just because a person/animal can eat something doesn't necessarily mean that he/she/it should eat it.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »Idancefit2015 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Humans are not meant to travel in space and we still do...
And that is that same how...???
If we were not meant to do it than we should not, right?
I never said that people are wrong for eating it. I really don't care who eats what but this is an opinion board and I was adding mine... that humans aren't made for digesting gluten and dairy.
The reason you are getting pushback is the term "made to" or "meant" -- which, whether you intended it as such or not is a religious statement implying that humans were made with a purpose. (I actually am religious, but think one should be careful about making statements like that outside of a religious context and that mix what we can determine with science and beliefs about purpose or teleology or whatever.)
Beyond that, it's not so much an opinion as a statement of belief about something that either is or is not factual: humans have trouble digesting gluten/dairy. That's simply not true as a generalized statement, as people have pointed out. Some have trouble with one or both of those things, and bummer for them, IMO.
Honestly, I tend to agree with the idea that grown up people should eat grownup food. Which means that for dairy, cheeses, yoghurts, kefirs are more appropriate for adults than milk. But I tend to phrase it as a preference, rather than as a rule.
I don't think that idea was expressed. The person saying humans are not meant to consume dairy presumably meant all dairy. (My own unpopular idea on the foods you mentioned is that to some extent kefir is popular because it's trendy and people think it's some superfood, which makes me kind of irrationally dislike it. Also, I don't like drinking calories, of course.)
Your opinion on milk specifically being kid's food I would treat as an unpopular opinion (vs. a mistake of fact like the poster in question was making), and weirdly enough it's one I grew up with and largely live by, although I think it's silly if subjected to any analysis. In my house growing up the kids drank milk, the adults drank water (well, for normal meals). I stopped drinking milk by the time I went to college, and in my 20s weaned myself out of putting milk in coffee (I never put sugar in coffee -- I think sweet coffee is just weird, that's another one of my unpopular opinions) based on the idea that it was more adult to drink coffee black. (The latte/cappuccino craze didn't really affect that, although I did drink coffee with milk in it in various forms when traveling in Europe subsequently.)
BUT, I'm capable of understanding that this is just my own cultural baggage and not that a glass of milk or some milk in oats (something I might do if I have milk around, I just normally do not) is actually only for kids.
To clarify, my opinion position has nothing to do with milk in farina or grits or oats, but purely drinking by the glass. Which for the record I've always thought was gross... and I could never have milk in "regular" cereal. Just grape nuts.
Well, my unpopular opinion is that all cold cereal is awful and I don't understand why people would choose to eat it, let alone when calories are valuable. ;-)
We all have our weird taste things.
I think drinking milk is tasty enough, but just don't like drinking calories. I did think it was a kid's thing when I was 17 or so, though.
I don't like it with milk, but dry it's okay as a snack. I'm mostly eating it to help me hit my iron RDA.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The use of the term "meant" leads to the question "meant by whom?" Especially since we are talking about things humans obviously CAN biologically do (here, consume dairy).
I've linked this before, since it's interesting (IMO): http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes
(Answer: largely dairy.)
To me it could just as easily lead to "meant by what?"
Evolution could answer that question.
I think it depends on your worldview, and though I generally do agree with what you're saying. I'm just picking nits for the fun of it because I think this whole thread jumped the shark with the mansplaining pregnancy fat shaming.
Is this the part where I call you baby to try to make things right now?
I disagree; the word "meant" implies intention and purpose, and therefore sentience. Evolution not have any particular intended result, so far as we know. Evolution does not particularly care whether you eat cheese or drink milk.5 -
Isn't Milk classed as a food? I cant see our ancestors foo fooing milk because "it's only meant for baby cows". I'd say they would have taken advantage of any food/nutrition source they had at their disposal, whether it came from cows, yaks, donkeys, or woolly mammoths.4
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?
Let me revise my time period - the period before man invented hydrogenated vegetable oil and Yellow #5.
So nothing to do with dairy, then, which was the specific food under discussion that it was claimed we were not "meant" to consume. That and gluten (also firmly early agriculture, if not before).
On the other hand, there are a number of things from even the later period that I would have a hard time justifying that we are not "meant" to have, like lots of antibiotics.
I don't know anything about whatever debates exist about Yellow Dye # 5, but here is some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine, under the header "myths":
"Rumors began circulating about tartrazine in the 1990s regarding a link to its consumption (specifically its use in Mountain Dew) and adverse effects on male potency, testicle and penis size, and sperm count. There are no documented cases supporting the claim tartrazine will shrink a man's penis or cause it to stop growing."
I mentioned agricultural periods of development above because that is when humans began to raise animals instead of just hunting them, and that is when they started consuming the milk of some of these animals. This only started 7-8 thousand years ago - placing that in the context of the millions of years that humans have existed in one form or another, it is a blink of the eye. So I don't think that it is illogical to state that we weren't "meant" to consume animal milk, since it is something that we only "recently" started doing. The same with cooking our food - until fire was discovered we ate raw meat, so given that, in the grand scheme of things, we weren't "meant" to eat our food cooked. It doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Humans and animals are able to consume all sorts of substances that they weren't "meant" to eat - the logic of eating things that were nonexistent through much of evolution varies. I watched a goose in the park the other day eat a cigarette butt. There are boneheads at the beach that feed seagulls french fries. I think we can agree that just because a person/animal can eat something doesn't necessarily mean that he/she/it should eat it.
Evolution didn't stop 7-8 thousand years ago, either. I remember hearing a scientist on an NPR Science Friday segment, one about whether the paleo diet has a scientific basis, say that humans have had plenty of time, more than enough generations, to evolve the ability to eat cultivated grain. Same should be true for dairy.5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?
Let me revise my time period - the period before man invented hydrogenated vegetable oil and Yellow #5.
So nothing to do with dairy, then, which was the specific food under discussion that it was claimed we were not "meant" to consume. That and gluten (also firmly early agriculture, if not before).
On the other hand, there are a number of things from even the later period that I would have a hard time justifying that we are not "meant" to have, like lots of antibiotics.
I don't know anything about whatever debates exist about Yellow Dye # 5, but here is some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine, under the header "myths":
"Rumors began circulating about tartrazine in the 1990s regarding a link to its consumption (specifically its use in Mountain Dew) and adverse effects on male potency, testicle and penis size, and sperm count. There are no documented cases supporting the claim tartrazine will shrink a man's penis or cause it to stop growing."
I mentioned agricultural periods of development above because that is when humans began to raise animals instead of just hunting them, and that is when they started consuming the milk of some of these animals. This only started 7-8 thousand years ago - placing that in the context of the millions of years that humans have existed in one form or another, it is a blink of the eye. So I don't think that it is illogical to state that we weren't "meant" to consume animal milk, since it is something that we only "recently" started doing. The same with cooking our food - until fire was discovered we ate raw meat, so given that, in the grand scheme of things, we weren't "meant" to eat our food cooked. It doesn't mean we shouldn't.
Humans and animals are able to consume all sorts of substances that they weren't "meant" to eat - the logic of eating things that were nonexistent through much of evolution varies. I watched a goose in the park the other day eat a cigarette butt. There are boneheads at the beach that feed seagulls french fries. I think we can agree that just because a person/animal can eat something doesn't necessarily mean that he/she/it should eat it.
Evolution didn't stop 7-8 thousand years ago, either. I remember hearing a scientist on an NPR Science Friday segment, one about whether the paleo diet has a scientific basis, say that humans have had plenty of time, more than enough generations, to evolve the ability to eat cultivated grain. Same should be true for dairy.
They also didn't just start drinking it 7000-8000 years ago, that's just when they started farming and cultivating it.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Lol, then by that logic, you must "burn" it off and lose it every time you sweat, pee, or breathe. Oh, no's gotta drink some water cause my mass went down! Dude, stick to broscience it sounds more logical.
It's HARDER with hypothyroid, but it STILL comes down to CICO. You CAN'T gain MASS by eating less than you burn. You can retain water, but that's not REAL weight in terms of body composition (lean mass and fat).007dualitygirl 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.
Not true. Hypothyroid causes me much grief. If I eat too little, all metabolic hell breaks lose and I gain weight. There is a balance that is required. Many times people are eating TOO FEW calories and their body is on lockdown.
A calculator can say "you burned 1500 calories today" and you can eat 1000 calories, but if in reality, you only burned 1000 calories that day because you have metabolic syndrome or hypothyroidism, you will not see results at all.
Point being that you have to take responsibility for increasing your metabolism along with keeping your caloric intake at bay.
That being said, if there are no real metabolic issues -- then I totally agree.
For metabolic issues, FIX the metabolism problem ... people say they have a slow metabolism while drinking alcohol everyday, never lifting weights to increase muscle mass, never doing HiiT cardio ... never working on their stress levels ... etc -- well that is irresponsible.
I'm going to go have my wine now and stop complaining about how I can't lose 20 pounds
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
Oh yes the legendary "fake" weight then it must be?
If its not lean mass or fat mass, what could it be?
Water is lean mass
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
What do you mean "by that logic", its fact.
What do you mean, "you people"?3 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Motorsheen wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »Idancefit2015 wrote: »dancefit2015 wrote: »I don't believe humans were necessarily meant to eat grain nor dairy... Maybe some have adapted but I know many people and myself feel terrible after eating any gluten or dairy.
Humans are not meant to travel in space and we still do...
And that is that same how...???
If we were not meant to do it than we should not, right?
I never said that people are wrong for eating it. I really don't care who eats what but this is an opinion board and I was adding mine... that humans aren't made for digesting gluten and dairy. If you do eat it that's your choice and that's fine. I eat it sometimes as well. But gluten is an inflammatory food so if you are sick of having aches and pains that don't seem to have an explanation, you might try cutting out gluten. And if you have issues with acne, bloating, and other hormonal issues, you might try cutting out dairy.
I am not a scientist, just a girl with an opinion... that's what this page is for right? OPINIONS? didn't realize that mine was so personally offensive -_-
The idea that we were made, or created, to do or not do anything in particular and that we should avoid doing that which we were not made to do is inherently a religious argument.
If you scroll up you'll see I already addressed this. Not religious. Just science. Our digestive systems just don't process the food well. And I feel like you haven't read anything I said considering that in my last post I said that there is no wrong in people eating it. I don't have a moral issue with gluten and Dairy lol I was just explaining how it can negatively affect the body and that the simple solution is cutting it out of your diet.
My digestive system is just fine with dairy...I don't think I'm some kind of exception here...I know one person in real life who is lactose intolerant, and I know a lot of people. I know a lot more people who are allergic to nuts (including my own kid) than I do people who are dairy intolerant.
We've been consuming dairy and grains for tens of thousands of years...
Did you ever wonder who was the first guy to look at a cow and think: " Boy, I sure am thirsty ! "
If you're actually wondering, historians say humans started drinking milk from other animals when nursing mothers would die, and it was either let their infants starve or try feeding them what other animals were feeding their babies. It's actually pretty logical, and it tended to work.
It then became more pervasive as people realised it was a cheap, pretty constant source of food. You kill a cow, you get food for a while. You keep one for milking - you have a source of nourishment that keeps giving.
That makes perfect sense; thanks for posting....
2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
What is the relevant period and place where the human evolved for this consideration?
Everywhere humans who were in the pre-agricultural period of advancement existed
That's a hugely diverse diet.
But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?
Let me revise my time period - the period before man invented hydrogenated vegetable oil and Yellow #5.
So nothing to do with dairy, then, which was the specific food under discussion that it was claimed we were not "meant" to consume. That and gluten (also firmly early agriculture, if not before).
On the other hand, there are a number of things from even the later period that I would have a hard time justifying that we are not "meant" to have, like lots of antibiotics.
I don't know anything about whatever debates exist about Yellow Dye # 5, but here is some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine, under the header "myths":
"Rumors began circulating about tartrazine in the 1990s regarding a link to its consumption (specifically its use in Mountain Dew) and adverse effects on male potency, testicle and penis size, and sperm count. There are no documented cases supporting the claim tartrazine will shrink a man's penis or cause it to stop growing."
I mentioned agricultural periods of development above because that is when humans began to raise animals instead of just hunting them, and that is when they started consuming the milk of some of these animals.
That's what I thought, but you seemed to backtrack. Initially you were agreeing that we weren't "meant" to consume dairy, and then when I asked what the logic was for that: "But why on earth would only the pre-agriculture period count? Why we were "meant" to eat whatever humans ate pre agriculture and not what we have eaten since then, even if our own genes reflect those later developments?", you changed your position and mentioned only quite recent things -- Yellow #5 and hydrogenated oils.
So back to dairy and grains -- we were eating them pre agriculture, which is why we decided to farm them (to grow grains, raise cows for milk). We have been doing that for a very long time, long enough for there to be a genetic difference in descendants of populations that lived off of dairy to a significant extent, on average, and those who did not. Again, those from populations where dairy was common -- descendants of northern and western Europeans and some other groups -- are very unlikely to be lactose intolerant, whereas that is quite common in some other groups (Japanese and Chinese, for example). So why would it make sense to say all that matters is what was going on pre agriculture?So I don't think that it is illogical to state that we weren't "meant" to consume animal milk, since it is something that we only "recently" started doing. The same with cooking our food - until fire was discovered we ate raw meat, so given that, in the grand scheme of things, we weren't "meant" to eat our food cooked. It doesn't mean we shouldn't.
One benefit of cooking food is that we were able to get MORE nutrients out of it and consume things we couldn't otherwise (other things allowed us to save foods and have them available when food was harder to come by). These were early changes. Unless you are assuming some kind of maker who created us and intended us only to eat the foods we originally were (and again, where and in what period? there's quite a variety) -- how does the term "meant" make any sense? We figured out that other options were helpful to us, including cooking, including dairy. (Personally, IMO even if you do assume a maker, why would you say we weren't "meant" to use our brains and figure this stuff out, but that's another argument.)Humans and animals are able to consume all sorts of substances that they weren't "meant" to eat - the logic of eating things that were nonexistent through much of evolution varies. I watched a goose in the park the other day eat a cigarette butt. There are boneheads at the beach that feed seagulls french fries. I think we can agree that just because a person/animal can eat something doesn't necessarily mean that he/she/it should eat it.
"Can eat" is different from "can helpfully include in diet and get important nutrients from." To compare dairy in the human diet to some bird eating a cigarette butt is, of course, not a sensible comparison at all.
I posted a link about how significant dairy was to one early version of the Irish diet -- before potatoes had been introduced to Europe. Clearly people found dairy an important source of nutrients they were able to consume. Does it make sense to say they weren't "meant" to be consuming dairy, should have figured out something else? (But potatoes were fine, since other cultures had eaten them earlier even though they weren't in Europe then?)6 -
clicketykeys wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The use of the term "meant" leads to the question "meant by whom?" Especially since we are talking about things humans obviously CAN biologically do (here, consume dairy).
I've linked this before, since it's interesting (IMO): http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes
(Answer: largely dairy.)
To me it could just as easily lead to "meant by what?"
Evolution could answer that question.
I think it depends on your worldview, and though I generally do agree with what you're saying. I'm just picking nits for the fun of it because I think this whole thread jumped the shark with the mansplaining pregnancy fat shaming.
Is this the part where I call you baby to try to make things right now?
I disagree; the word "meant" implies intention and purpose, and therefore sentience. Evolution not have any particular intended result, so far as we know. Evolution does not particularly care whether you eat cheese or drink milk.
Then we have to agree to disagree because this is a silly argument.
I agree "meant" can imply intention and purpose, but it doesn't have to in colloquial usage.
I recently bought a dress for a wedding I attended, and my daughter said when I tried it on that the dress was meant for me because it fit perfectly and was my favorite color. Not only that, it was exactly the style I had in mind and was hoping to find.
Language is a funny and fluid thing and this, as I said, is a silly argument.3 -
leanitup123 wrote: »AvocadNO THANK YOU!!!
But but....guacamole!3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The use of the term "meant" leads to the question "meant by whom?" Especially since we are talking about things humans obviously CAN biologically do (here, consume dairy).
I've linked this before, since it's interesting (IMO): http://www.bonappetit.com/trends/article/what-the-irish-ate-before-potatoes
(Answer: largely dairy.)
To me it could just as easily lead to "meant by what?"
Evolution could answer that question.
I think it depends on your worldview, and though I generally do agree with what you're saying. I'm just picking nits for the fun of it because I think this whole thread jumped the shark with the mansplaining pregnancy fat shaming.
Is this the part where I call you baby to try to make things right now?
I prefer "babe." ;-)
I'm cool with the nitpicking, but I usually think when people use "meant" they are implicitly assuming some sort of purposeful or directed creation, which is not the normal idea of evolution as I understand it.
My bigger issue, of course, is why wouldn't I be "meant" to eat something my ancestors have for ages and that I can digest quite easily and get nutrients from. (And you weren't saying we weren't, of course, but quite the opposite. That humans are adaptable omnivores and so by nature seem to be "meant" (meaning "adapted") to eat a ridiculous number of things we never ate until recently, many of which we invented, like bananas in their current form, or corn in same, is something I would not argue with!)
If by "meant," someone is referring to the circumstances in which we evolved (as opposed to someone's intention), I would consider that to be unclear phrasing. That's just me, but I always think "meant" refers back to an intention.
If I saw someone doing something dangerous that would lead to harm, I would never say "You aren't meant to do that." I would warn them about the harm that would likely result. I would say "You aren't meant to do that" if I saw someone doing something that was against a rule or regulation (that is, if I was being a busybody. I'd be more likely to mind my own business unless someone was going to get hurt).3 -
Okay, who here is willing to give up ice cream, cheese and yogurt? If not, then milk it is!
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 5 -
stevencloser wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Hmm... my unpopular opinions about health and fitness...
- That I think it's NONSENSE that the best way to improve your body involves only restricting your calories, often to some crazy low level generated by a MFP computer algorithm that has never met you.
- That I believe that weight is not the be all and end all. I believe that many people set unrealistic goal weights, and can develop a terrible obsession with getting as light as possible. I teetered on the edge of this myself. I looked scrawny and unattractive, and positively ill when I was close to my goal weight. Thankfully I stopped chasing the scales and look way better now, approximately 12kg heavier, strong and lean. My clothes are mostly the same size they were at my skinniest. Lifting FTW.
- That I think that although some parts of these forums are fab, they are out of control on the "add a letter", "the person above you..." and those kinds of threads. I may be a luddite but I don't get it. And it makes it hard to find the good threads!
You can block certain forums so you won't see them. Chit-Chat, for example...
Not anymore unfortunately. The forum software got changed at some point.
My unfollowed forums are still unfollowed and I can still currently elect to unfollow other forums (on Safari on MacBook but Im pretty sure I can still do it on my Windows desktop machine also).
You can unfollow them but they don't disappear from sight anymore.
But they do go away from the "Recent Discussions" view. Win!1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The argument of "meant to" is a weird one. Humans are known for their adaptability. What was that thing that the men adapted to on the Lewis & Clark expedition? Camas root? The first time the ate it they were sick, but with it being the only food source available, they adapted to it (or something like that).
What we are "meant to" do, if anything, is adapt to foods in our environment. It seems very odd to me, if you're going to ascribe to a philosophy of being "meant to" eat certain things, that you'd be plopped into an environment with certain foods not being meant to eat them. Or to better state the reality, given the ability to travel from one environment to another, and having a system which is hardwired to only survive in one's native region.
It just doesn't make sense.
"Meant to do" is inherently a religious argument, as it implies that there is something or someone who imposes meaning.
Perhaps. I am an atheist, and I see it more from the perspective as "meant to" by means of biology/biological imperative.
I do see your argument, but I don't assume that to be the only interpretation you can give to the phrase. I think on the face of it you're probably onto the most widely presupposed one (even if subconsciously done so).
Please note, I don't think we're meant to do anything. I think humans have demonstrated the ability to do some things, and if you're going to use the "meant to" wording for that, well have at it. It doesn't bother me.
I've never conflated the "Humans weren't meant to do" thing with religious beliefs either, i too thought these people were talking about the biological process.
I'm not an atheist though, I just don't believe in religion.
That was my interpretation- it concerns the compatibility of certain foods with what the animal was accustomed to consuming in the environment where it evolved. There is a reason that zoos don't allow people to feed their animals Fritos or Skittles.
Is it wrong that I now want to go and feed Skittles to, I don't know, a goat or a llama and see if they get a crazy sugar high?!
Sigh. Clearly under-utilized at work today...3 -
Okay, who here is willing to give up ice cream, cheese and yogurt? If not, then milk it is!
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
None of those things is milk.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 389 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions