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
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »Can someone honestly tell me how these nefarious overlord conspiracy things actually work? I mean, there has to be thousands of people involved. All keeping it quiet. No leaks. Highly organised. Incredibly coordinated.
I mean, I've worked in Government, pretty high up, pretty respectable security clearance and I can honestly say - the things that they are doing *publicly*, with broad based support, resources and funding, they're... just not that good at. How the hell are these giant conspiracies working so smoothly? How has this been going for 60+ years and no one has blown the lid on it yet?
What has the government been doing for 60 years?
0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Can someone honestly tell me how these nefarious overlord conspiracy things actually work? I mean, there has to be thousands of people involved. All keeping it quiet. No leaks. Highly organised. Incredibly coordinated.
I mean, I've worked in Government, pretty high up, pretty respectable security clearance and I can honestly say - the things that they are doing *publicly*, with broad based support, resources and funding, they're... just not that good at. How the hell are these giant conspiracies working so smoothly? How has this been going for 60+ years and no one has blown the lid on it yet?
What has the government been doing for 60 years?
Government/big sugar/ big pharma - in general terms there are so many conspiracy theories that the world population is being nefariously manipulated for monetary gain yet no one can every explain who these people are, or how they're pulling it off.8 -
IRL, I would say that more than half of women I know who have become pregnant gained substantially more weight than they needed to. I don't know if that represents the population as a whole, but among those I actually know, it seems to me like it's a very common (and preventable) issue.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Regarding women and pregnancy weight gain, I think it's fair to say this. There are a lot of women out there who gain a lot more than what they really need to. Regardless of whatever amount of weight that is, there are a lot of women who gain excessively.
So do non pregnant men. What's your point?
Exactly what I was wondering in response to that statement.
Perhaps the point being made was not that non pregnant people also gain too much, but that there are women who use the pregnancy as an excuse to gain too much.
People use lots of things as an excuse for weight gain, so again I'm not sure what JasonForecaster's point was in singling out -- indeed, concern trolling, or so it seemed to me -- about pregnant women doing this. I found it rather humorous (in a way) that he did so. After all, no one asserted that pregnant women never gain too much, there's no particular reason to see pregnant women gaining weight with a pregnancy as the driving force of the obesity problem, which is much broader, and it seems odd that Jason, who is a normal or underweight single guy, last I recall, would be particularly concerned about how all these pregnant women are packing on the pounds. Well, not odd, exactly, but something.
3 -
With all this talk of what humans are 'meant to eat and digest' it made me think of the first animals that left the oceans. I bet the ones that stayed kept saying, "we aren't meant to be on the land."14
-
kolagani12 wrote: »i have a lot
IIFYM- plain stupid. An excuse by fatties to allow themselves to eat whatever they want. That type of behavior is what got them in this situation in the first place- you shouldn't ENCOURAGE this behavior
Pre-Workouts- If you lack the energy or the drive to do a proper workout and need to take a powder to give you that energy, you aren't worthy of achieving fitness
Keto- "muh carbs, so let me just eat some bacon instead." You dummy. Carbs didn't make you fat, it was you eating too much that made you fat. Make wise choices, such as whole grains, and you can enjoy carbs. Not to mention this plan is *kitten* for anyone trying to build muscle.
"I can't lose weight"- yes you can, you aren't trying hard enough. Take responsibility.
I realize this is an opinion thread, but if you are going to give an opinion, you should at least understand what you are spouting off against. IIFYM does not in any way mean you can absolutely eat anything you want. You should do your homework first.
Especially ironic, as his/her argument against Keto is - in many ways - the essence of IIFYM.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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).
I'm also OK with going along with the fun. All language is metaphor, but sometimes our choices of words belie our understanding. To echo @janejellyroll, you wouldn't say that "humans aren't meant to eat cyanide". (At least I wouldn't.) You say that "cyanide is poisonous".
To say that "meaning" is a religious argument doesn't mean that great father god in the sky dictated something, it means that the speaker understands there is an imposed framework on the universe. Perhaps I should have said that it's a philosophical statement. There are shades of meaning between "X isn't meant to do Y", "X shouldn't do Y", and "It is wrong for X to do Y."
I get a little iffy about invoking natural selection to describe observed biological processes, because so often these explanations devolve into "just so stories." Q: Why do male robins have a red breast? A: Because robins with red breasts had an evolutionary advantage, either in breeding or in survival. It doesn't really explain anything. Natural selection is a blind process involving large numbers and random happenstance.
I can also invoke natural selection to say that certain people with certain genetic mutations can digest lactose as adults, and thus are meant to eat dairy.
Well said. I think another issue with using natural selection to determine what or how we should eat is that natural selection isn't necessarily about living the longest life or the one where we feel our best. It's about successful reproduction. Looking at what humans ate while we evolved won't necessarily help me be vibrant and healthy into my 80s -- that's a whole separate issue. To be "successful" from a biological POV looks rather different than my personal definition of success.
Yes, good points.
Jruzer's point (as well as yours) is also why I am queasy about the idea of "we used to do this, so it must be the way we were MEANT to eat."
Beyond that, we ate what was available to us, that doesn't mean we were perfectly evolutionarily suited to just thoe foods and no others -- the diversity of the human diet (and our ability to adapt, a strength of ours!) says otherwise.
I brought this point up before, but I think it is a relevant one: evolutionarily, that we can and want to eat when food is available (well, many of us) even if we have eaten over our TDEEs for the day or week was a STRENGTH, because food availability would vary quite a lot. In the current surplus environment, it means it's easy for many of us to gain weight, unless we exercise vigilance. Does this mean that we are "meant" to overeat when food is available, even if that means gaining weight, even now when of course that is not evolutionarily advantageous and probably even bad for our health (2 separate things, as you note)?
If not, then why should the fact that most humans 50,000 years ago couldn't digest lactose as adults mean that I (who can) am not "meant" to consume milk?
Usually the dairy argument is a bit different -- it's that for mammals milk is produced specifically for the biological purpose of being infant food, so it's "meant" for that and therefore not for us. Okay, fine, but carrots also don't grow biologically in order to be our food, deer doesn't reproduce for the privilege of being eaten by us, so I really don't see how this makes cow's milk different from everything else we eat (other than maybe Soylent 2.0). ;-)
The logic of what we're "meant" to eat is pretty much going to begin and end with fruit, as fruit evolved the way it did because it was more successful when animals would eat it and help spread the seeds. (At least that's what I've always read).
While I like fruit a lot, I'm not ready to adopt the "Foods we are meant to eat" diet.
And we aren't even doing that right. We'd have to eat the fruit whole, seeds and all and then go poop in the woods to eat fruit the way it's meant to. Granted, we're keeping them alive in more efficient ways, but that's unnatural!5 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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).
I'm also OK with going along with the fun. All language is metaphor, but sometimes our choices of words belie our understanding. To echo @janejellyroll, you wouldn't say that "humans aren't meant to eat cyanide". (At least I wouldn't.) You say that "cyanide is poisonous".
To say that "meaning" is a religious argument doesn't mean that great father god in the sky dictated something, it means that the speaker understands there is an imposed framework on the universe. Perhaps I should have said that it's a philosophical statement. There are shades of meaning between "X isn't meant to do Y", "X shouldn't do Y", and "It is wrong for X to do Y."
I get a little iffy about invoking natural selection to describe observed biological processes, because so often these explanations devolve into "just so stories." Q: Why do male robins have a red breast? A: Because robins with red breasts had an evolutionary advantage, either in breeding or in survival. It doesn't really explain anything. Natural selection is a blind process involving large numbers and random happenstance.
I can also invoke natural selection to say that certain people with certain genetic mutations can digest lactose as adults, and thus are meant to eat dairy.
Well said. I think another issue with using natural selection to determine what or how we should eat is that natural selection isn't necessarily about living the longest life or the one where we feel our best. It's about successful reproduction. Looking at what humans ate while we evolved won't necessarily help me be vibrant and healthy into my 80s -- that's a whole separate issue. To be "successful" from a biological POV looks rather different than my personal definition of success.
Yes, good points.
Jruzer's point (as well as yours) is also why I am queasy about the idea of "we used to do this, so it must be the way we were MEANT to eat."
Beyond that, we ate what was available to us, that doesn't mean we were perfectly evolutionarily suited to just thoe foods and no others -- the diversity of the human diet (and our ability to adapt, a strength of ours!) says otherwise.
I brought this point up before, but I think it is a relevant one: evolutionarily, that we can and want to eat when food is available (well, many of us) even if we have eaten over our TDEEs for the day or week was a STRENGTH, because food availability would vary quite a lot. In the current surplus environment, it means it's easy for many of us to gain weight, unless we exercise vigilance. Does this mean that we are "meant" to overeat when food is available, even if that means gaining weight, even now when of course that is not evolutionarily advantageous and probably even bad for our health (2 separate things, as you note)?
If not, then why should the fact that most humans 50,000 years ago couldn't digest lactose as adults mean that I (who can) am not "meant" to consume milk?
Usually the dairy argument is a bit different -- it's that for mammals milk is produced specifically for the biological purpose of being infant food, so it's "meant" for that and therefore not for us. Okay, fine, but carrots also don't grow biologically in order to be our food, deer doesn't reproduce for the privilege of being eaten by us, so I really don't see how this makes cow's milk different from everything else we eat (other than maybe Soylent 2.0). ;-)
I don’t think most people will change their eating habits based upon the perception of what we are “meant” to eat (except for Paleo types of people). To me, it is more of a philosophical discussion about how cultural advancement has impacted our eating habits. The widespread practice of drinking animal milk was only made possible by the domestication of animals as large groups of humans emerged from the hunter/scavenger period. Previous to this, chasing, capturing, and tying down wild animals to extract milk was a bit labor intensive.
I think that the point of noting this is to achieve some level of mindfulness regarding our modern food supply. There is a drastic increase in obesity, cancer, diabetes, food allergies, etc. that has emerged over the past 50 years, and a part of the problem is arguably caused by the industrialization of our food supply and the introduction of additives that were never a part of the human diet throughout most of our evolution. In the past, new items were slowly introduced into our food supply over the course of thousands of years, like animal milk. In contemporary times, additives like food dyes, steroids, antibiotics, laboratory preservatives, etc., were introduced into the food supply of billions of people in a very short amount of time. How humans will tolerate these modern diet alterations long term remains to be seen.
How well did the original drinkers of animal milk tolerate it? I’m assuming that the practice of drinking it was originally motivated out of desperation. Perhaps many could not tolerate it and died of malnutrition, if there was a food shortage and that was one of the only sources of nutrition available (beyond slaughtering and eating the animal), which would have thinned the population of non-milk drinkers and perpetuated the enzyme which allowed lactose tolerance.
To the bolded passage:
Having been alive and old enough to be aware through most of the past 50 years (I'm 61), there's not the slightest doubt in my mind that the obesity epidemic's main causes are a dramatic decrease in the average person's NEAT, in tandem with changes in eating norms that have dramatically increased the average person's calories consumed. I could list a dozen specific examples of these trends.
Occam's razor: CO decrease coupled with CI increase is a much simpler explanation for widespread excess weight than is a vague, poorly-substantiated theory about Evil Additives.
Someone else has already commented on the portion of the argument about diabetes, cancer, etc. I agree and won't repeat it.
Beyond the additives I listed, salt and sodium and ingredients high in fat have been systematically added to industrially produced foods and fast food since the 1950s. (see "Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us" by Michael Moss for a nice overview). The purpose of this was to make foods have a longer shelf life (sodium) and to get people hooked on the additives. And this worked brilliantly and contributes significantly to our obesity epidemic.
Are you aware of the single most popular food preservation method for thousands of years pre-refrigeration? See if you can guess.
There is a distinction between using salt to preserve something and using it to add taste (and increasing heart attack and stroke, and high blood pressure vulnerability if too much is consumed over a long period of time). Salt in the pre-refrigeration era makes sense - perhaps you can explain why salt needs to be added to a frozen TV dinner.
Dude--seriously? You may not have noticed this, but salt tastes really freakin' good. Try making a loaf of bread without salt and see how you like it. I can assure you, people have been adding salt to food to make it taste good for millennia. Or did you want an actual discourse on medieval and ancient salt trade routes and the uses of this precious commodity in regional cuisine? I can go on at some length, having specialized in a very obscure corner of the humanities dealing with agrarian issues.
still mind blown that salting food for preservation in the middle ages was OK, but once it was done by companies in the 1900's it somehow became evil....
The thing that always blows my mind is that the 500g jar of salt in my kitchen cabinet that cost like... 3 Euros or something would've made me richer than a king 1000 years ago. #bornInTheWrongMillennium14 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
IRL, I would say that more than half of women I know who have become pregnant gained substantially more weight than they needed to. I don't know if that represents the population as a whole, but among those I actually know, it seems to me like it's a very common (and preventable) issue.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Regarding women and pregnancy weight gain, I think it's fair to say this. There are a lot of women out there who gain a lot more than what they really need to. Regardless of whatever amount of weight that is, there are a lot of women who gain excessively.
So do non pregnant men. What's your point?
Exactly what I was wondering in response to that statement.
Perhaps the point being made was not that non pregnant people also gain too much, but that there are women who use the pregnancy as an excuse to gain too much.
People use lots of things as an excuse for weight gain, so again I'm not sure what JasonForecaster's point was in singling out -- indeed, concern trolling, or so it seemed to me -- about pregnant women doing this. I found it rather humorous (in a way) that he did so. After all, no one asserted that pregnant women never gain too much, there's no particular reason to see pregnant women gaining weight with a pregnancy as the driving force of the obesity problem, which is much broader, and it seems odd that Jason, who is a normal or underweight single guy, last I recall, would be particularly concerned about how all these pregnant women are packing on the pounds. Well, not odd, exactly, but something.
Did you ask these friends of yours how much they gained or you just assumed they gained more than necessary? Curious.13 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Can someone honestly tell me how these nefarious overlord conspiracy things actually work? I mean, there has to be thousands of people involved. All keeping it quiet. No leaks. Highly organised. Incredibly coordinated.
I mean, I've worked in Government, pretty high up, pretty respectable security clearance and I can honestly say - the things that they are doing *publicly*, with broad based support, resources and funding, they're... just not that good at. How the hell are these giant conspiracies working so smoothly? How has this been going for 60+ years and no one has blown the lid on it yet?
Yup.
And in the recently-discussed instance, a good part of the conspiracy involved "covertly" filling our foods with salt and sugar . . . which evidently we can't taste, because covert (yet somehow still addictive via flavor). SMH.
Smart as cement blocks back in the 1950s and 1960s, we were, I guess.4 -
kolagani12 wrote: »i have a lot
IIFYM- plain stupid. An excuse by fatties to allow themselves to eat whatever they want. That type of behavior is what got them in this situation in the first place- you shouldn't ENCOURAGE this behavior
Pre-Workouts- If you lack the energy or the drive to do a proper workout and need to take a powder to give you that energy, you aren't worthy of achieving fitness
Keto- "muh carbs, so let me just eat some bacon instead." You dummy. Carbs didn't make you fat, it was you eating too much that made you fat. Make wise choices, such as whole grains, and you can enjoy carbs. Not to mention this plan is *kitten* for anyone trying to build muscle.
"I can't lose weight"- yes you can, you aren't trying hard enough. Take responsibility.
I realize this is an opinion thread, but if you are going to give an opinion, you should at least understand what you are spouting off against. IIFYM does not in any way mean you can absolutely eat anything you want. You should do your homework first.
Especially ironic, as his/her argument against Keto is - in many ways - the essence of IIFYM.
Exactly. Don't really get the assertion that eating according to your macro allowance (which therefore is within your calorie allowance) makes you a fatty.6 -
I did not ask. But I also know other pregnant women who did not gain excessively. There's obviously a noticeable difference between a few extra pounds and a ton extra.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
IRL, I would say that more than half of women I know who have become pregnant gained substantially more weight than they needed to. I don't know if that represents the population as a whole, but among those I actually know, it seems to me like it's a very common (and preventable) issue.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Regarding women and pregnancy weight gain, I think it's fair to say this. There are a lot of women out there who gain a lot more than what they really need to. Regardless of whatever amount of weight that is, there are a lot of women who gain excessively.
So do non pregnant men. What's your point?
Exactly what I was wondering in response to that statement.
Perhaps the point being made was not that non pregnant people also gain too much, but that there are women who use the pregnancy as an excuse to gain too much.
People use lots of things as an excuse for weight gain, so again I'm not sure what JasonForecaster's point was in singling out -- indeed, concern trolling, or so it seemed to me -- about pregnant women doing this. I found it rather humorous (in a way) that he did so. After all, no one asserted that pregnant women never gain too much, there's no particular reason to see pregnant women gaining weight with a pregnancy as the driving force of the obesity problem, which is much broader, and it seems odd that Jason, who is a normal or underweight single guy, last I recall, would be particularly concerned about how all these pregnant women are packing on the pounds. Well, not odd, exactly, but something.
Did you ask these friends of yours how much they gained or you just assumed they gained more than necessary? Curious.
5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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).
I'm also OK with going along with the fun. All language is metaphor, but sometimes our choices of words belie our understanding. To echo @janejellyroll, you wouldn't say that "humans aren't meant to eat cyanide". (At least I wouldn't.) You say that "cyanide is poisonous".
To say that "meaning" is a religious argument doesn't mean that great father god in the sky dictated something, it means that the speaker understands there is an imposed framework on the universe. Perhaps I should have said that it's a philosophical statement. There are shades of meaning between "X isn't meant to do Y", "X shouldn't do Y", and "It is wrong for X to do Y."
I get a little iffy about invoking natural selection to describe observed biological processes, because so often these explanations devolve into "just so stories." Q: Why do male robins have a red breast? A: Because robins with red breasts had an evolutionary advantage, either in breeding or in survival. It doesn't really explain anything. Natural selection is a blind process involving large numbers and random happenstance.
I can also invoke natural selection to say that certain people with certain genetic mutations can digest lactose as adults, and thus are meant to eat dairy.
Well said. I think another issue with using natural selection to determine what or how we should eat is that natural selection isn't necessarily about living the longest life or the one where we feel our best. It's about successful reproduction. Looking at what humans ate while we evolved won't necessarily help me be vibrant and healthy into my 80s -- that's a whole separate issue. To be "successful" from a biological POV looks rather different than my personal definition of success.
Yes, good points.
Jruzer's point (as well as yours) is also why I am queasy about the idea of "we used to do this, so it must be the way we were MEANT to eat."
Beyond that, we ate what was available to us, that doesn't mean we were perfectly evolutionarily suited to just thoe foods and no others -- the diversity of the human diet (and our ability to adapt, a strength of ours!) says otherwise.
I brought this point up before, but I think it is a relevant one: evolutionarily, that we can and want to eat when food is available (well, many of us) even if we have eaten over our TDEEs for the day or week was a STRENGTH, because food availability would vary quite a lot. In the current surplus environment, it means it's easy for many of us to gain weight, unless we exercise vigilance. Does this mean that we are "meant" to overeat when food is available, even if that means gaining weight, even now when of course that is not evolutionarily advantageous and probably even bad for our health (2 separate things, as you note)?
If not, then why should the fact that most humans 50,000 years ago couldn't digest lactose as adults mean that I (who can) am not "meant" to consume milk?
Usually the dairy argument is a bit different -- it's that for mammals milk is produced specifically for the biological purpose of being infant food, so it's "meant" for that and therefore not for us. Okay, fine, but carrots also don't grow biologically in order to be our food, deer doesn't reproduce for the privilege of being eaten by us, so I really don't see how this makes cow's milk different from everything else we eat (other than maybe Soylent 2.0). ;-)
I don’t think most people will change their eating habits based upon the perception of what we are “meant” to eat (except for Paleo types of people). To me, it is more of a philosophical discussion about how cultural advancement has impacted our eating habits. The widespread practice of drinking animal milk was only made possible by the domestication of animals as large groups of humans emerged from the hunter/scavenger period. Previous to this, chasing, capturing, and tying down wild animals to extract milk was a bit labor intensive.
I think that the point of noting this is to achieve some level of mindfulness regarding our modern food supply. There is a drastic increase in obesity, cancer, diabetes, food allergies, etc. that has emerged over the past 50 years, and a part of the problem is arguably caused by the industrialization of our food supply and the introduction of additives that were never a part of the human diet throughout most of our evolution. In the past, new items were slowly introduced into our food supply over the course of thousands of years, like animal milk. In contemporary times, additives like food dyes, steroids, antibiotics, laboratory preservatives, etc., were introduced into the food supply of billions of people in a very short amount of time. How humans will tolerate these modern diet alterations long term remains to be seen.
How well did the original drinkers of animal milk tolerate it? I’m assuming that the practice of drinking it was originally motivated out of desperation. Perhaps many could not tolerate it and died of malnutrition, if there was a food shortage and that was one of the only sources of nutrition available (beyond slaughtering and eating the animal), which would have thinned the population of non-milk drinkers and perpetuated the enzyme which allowed lactose tolerance.
To the bolded passage:
Having been alive and old enough to be aware through most of the past 50 years (I'm 61), there's not the slightest doubt in my mind that the obesity epidemic's main causes are a dramatic decrease in the average person's NEAT, in tandem with changes in eating norms that have dramatically increased the average person's calories consumed. I could list a dozen specific examples of these trends.
Occam's razor: CO decrease coupled with CI increase is a much simpler explanation for widespread excess weight than is a vague, poorly-substantiated theory about Evil Additives.
Someone else has already commented on the portion of the argument about diabetes, cancer, etc. I agree and won't repeat it.
Beyond the additives I listed, salt and sodium and ingredients high in fat have been systematically added to industrially produced foods and fast food since the 1950s. (see "Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us" by Michael Moss for a nice overview). The purpose of this was to make foods have a longer shelf life (sodium) and to get people hooked on the additives. And this worked brilliantly and contributes significantly to our obesity epidemic.
Are you aware of the single most popular food preservation method for thousands of years pre-refrigeration? See if you can guess.
There is a distinction between using salt to preserve something and using it to add taste (and increasing heart attack and stroke, and high blood pressure vulnerability if too much is consumed over a long period of time). Salt in the pre-refrigeration era makes sense - perhaps you can explain why salt needs to be added to a frozen TV dinner.
Dude--seriously? You may not have noticed this, but salt tastes really freakin' good. Try making a loaf of bread without salt and see how you like it. I can assure you, people have been adding salt to food to make it taste good for millennia. Or did you want an actual discourse on medieval and ancient salt trade routes and the uses of this precious commodity in regional cuisine? I can go on at some length, having specialized in a very obscure corner of the humanities dealing with agrarian issues.
still mind blown that salting food for preservation in the middle ages was OK, but once it was done by companies in the 1900's it somehow became evil....
Yes, because I asserted salt is evil - here you go have at it, give him a good beating:
no need to, I will just use your own words..
"There is a distinction between using salt to preserve something and using it to add taste (and increasing heart attack and stroke, and high blood pressure vulnerability if too much is consumed over a long period of time)..."
so OK for preserving but not OK when added for taste?
Food industry corporations covertly adding sodium in excessive quantities to the extent that it was impairing the health of millions of consumers in the 50s through the 80s is dangerous and unethical. This happened. If it doesn't align with your narrative, than just lash out and frame my well-documented assertion as paranoid, but the reality of it won't change.
50s through the 80s when the lifespans of Americans were increasing at a rate they never had before?6 -
Bird of a feather flock together, so what is a guide in one chat area is quackery in another. Vive la difference...and now I return to my closed group!1
-
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I did not ask. But I also know other pregnant women who did not gain excessively. There's obviously a noticeable difference between a few extra pounds and a ton extra.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
IRL, I would say that more than half of women I know who have become pregnant gained substantially more weight than they needed to. I don't know if that represents the population as a whole, but among those I actually know, it seems to me like it's a very common (and preventable) issue.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Regarding women and pregnancy weight gain, I think it's fair to say this. There are a lot of women out there who gain a lot more than what they really need to. Regardless of whatever amount of weight that is, there are a lot of women who gain excessively.
So do non pregnant men. What's your point?
Exactly what I was wondering in response to that statement.
Perhaps the point being made was not that non pregnant people also gain too much, but that there are women who use the pregnancy as an excuse to gain too much.
People use lots of things as an excuse for weight gain, so again I'm not sure what JasonForecaster's point was in singling out -- indeed, concern trolling, or so it seemed to me -- about pregnant women doing this. I found it rather humorous (in a way) that he did so. After all, no one asserted that pregnant women never gain too much, there's no particular reason to see pregnant women gaining weight with a pregnancy as the driving force of the obesity problem, which is much broader, and it seems odd that Jason, who is a normal or underweight single guy, last I recall, would be particularly concerned about how all these pregnant women are packing on the pounds. Well, not odd, exactly, but something.
Did you ask these friends of yours how much they gained or you just assumed they gained more than necessary? Curious.
Really just stop.14 -
unpopular opinion.. protein is overrated.. we dont have protein deficiencies here in the US... its all a marketing scheme..6
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »Can someone honestly tell me how these nefarious overlord conspiracy things actually work? I mean, there has to be thousands of people involved. All keeping it quiet. No leaks. Highly organised. Incredibly coordinated.
I mean, I've worked in Government, pretty high up, pretty respectable security clearance and I can honestly say - the things that they are doing *publicly*, with broad based support, resources and funding, they're... just not that good at. How the hell are these giant conspiracies working so smoothly? How has this been going for 60+ years and no one has blown the lid on it yet?
Because.... Monsanto. Not government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g 4 -
tiffaninghs wrote: »unpopular opinion.. protein is overrated.. we dont have protein deficiencies here in the US... its all a marketing scheme..
Lol what?2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I did not ask. But I also know other pregnant women who did not gain excessively. There's obviously a noticeable difference between a few extra pounds and a ton extra.Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
IRL, I would say that more than half of women I know who have become pregnant gained substantially more weight than they needed to. I don't know if that represents the population as a whole, but among those I actually know, it seems to me like it's a very common (and preventable) issue.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Regarding women and pregnancy weight gain, I think it's fair to say this. There are a lot of women out there who gain a lot more than what they really need to. Regardless of whatever amount of weight that is, there are a lot of women who gain excessively.
So do non pregnant men. What's your point?
Exactly what I was wondering in response to that statement.
Perhaps the point being made was not that non pregnant people also gain too much, but that there are women who use the pregnancy as an excuse to gain too much.
People use lots of things as an excuse for weight gain, so again I'm not sure what JasonForecaster's point was in singling out -- indeed, concern trolling, or so it seemed to me -- about pregnant women doing this. I found it rather humorous (in a way) that he did so. After all, no one asserted that pregnant women never gain too much, there's no particular reason to see pregnant women gaining weight with a pregnancy as the driving force of the obesity problem, which is much broader, and it seems odd that Jason, who is a normal or underweight single guy, last I recall, would be particularly concerned about how all these pregnant women are packing on the pounds. Well, not odd, exactly, but something.
Did you ask these friends of yours how much they gained or you just assumed they gained more than necessary? Curious.
In pregnant women, you can tell just by looking at them how much weight they've put on? That's quite a talent. I wonder how you would have pegged me, who has fibroid tumors that grow to tennis ball/baseball size during pregnancy due to all the excess hormones and gave the distinct appearance that I was carrying twins even though I had only gained 22 lbs and 27 lbs with my pregnancies and gave birth to single, healthy weight, babies each time.
Seriously dude, stop digging your hole. You have no idea how much weight any of those women gained, what their doctors advised them was healthy, etc.17
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions