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?

15758606263358

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    unpopular opinion.. protein is overrated.. we dont have protein deficiencies here in the US... its all a marketing scheme..

    I have actually had protein deficiency (very low albumin)

    My sister was hospitalized for protein deficiency once -- she was a teenage vegetarian who ate very few nutrient-dense foods. It can happen.

    For me it was when my crohn's was very very severe and I wasn't absorbing anything. I was hospitalized for over a month on tpn and was getting blood transfusions because of it

    That's why I don't understand people making blanket statements like that. You have people who are ill and can't eat much, people who are having absorption issues, people who are very picky eaters, and people who restrict their diets without making appropriate replacements for the foods they're eliminating. All these people potentially could have protein deficiencies.

  • jseams1234
    jseams1234 Posts: 1,202 Member
    edited June 2017
    Leigh14 wrote: »
    My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.

    Science? .... /music... strange science!

    I'm eating more than 4K cals a day. I've gained about 25# in the last 6 months and it's been a royal pain. Eating has become a job and not fun. :( ... so you are saying that I'd be better off eating 800 on my bulk? ;);););)
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    panda4153 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 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.
    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.

    Did you ask these friends of yours how much they gained or you just assumed they gained more than necessary? Curious.
    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.

    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.
    I never claimed to be able to tell exactly how much weight anyone gained. I said I could tell a difference between a little extra weight and a ton.

    And since this thread is about unpopular opinions, what I'm saying is still valid.

    Next up: The women of MFP start advising ForecasterJason about how to handle the negative side effects of higher testosterone . . . .


    ( ;););) . . . wait, how many winkies wazzat for sarcasm? . . ;) )

    You can't have too many winkies in this thread. lol. ;):)
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,147 Member
    Only a small percentage of people truly benefit from being "gluten free." There's an annoying coworker who's very smug about going "gluten free" when she is not a celiac, and honestly, she should know better. But I just keep my mouth shut.

    On the other hand, cutting out the empty carbs (like sugary drinks and snacks) and focusing on more whole grains, etc., has done me a world of good - and I've got the scientific data (cholesterol, liver enzymes, fasting glucose, blood pressure) to prove it.


    those results can be a function of weight loss and getting to a healthier weight and not reducing a specific macro.

    see "the twinkie diet"
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 32,394 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Only a small percentage of people truly benefit from being "gluten free." There's an annoying coworker who's very smug about going "gluten free" when she is not a celiac, and honestly, she should know better. But I just keep my mouth shut.

    On the other hand, cutting out the empty carbs (like sugary drinks and snacks) and focusing on more whole grains, etc., has done me a world of good - and I've got the scientific data (cholesterol, liver enzymes, fasting glucose, blood pressure) to prove it.


    those results can be a function of weight loss and getting to a healthier weight and not reducing a specific macro.

    see "the twinkie diet"

    Unpopular!!!

    :wink: :wink: :wink:
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    Leigh14 wrote: »
    My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.

    I really think you have this backwards. I rarely if ever see people praised for eating under 1200 calories, and often see the opposite, with people jumping on the poster without knowing the whys. The only time I've seen negative about eating more is when the poster complains they can't lose weight.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 32,394 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Leigh14 wrote: »
    My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.

    I really think you have this backwards. I rarely if ever see people praised for eating under 1200 calories, and often see the opposite, with people jumping on the poster without knowing the whys. The only time I've seen negative about eating more is when the poster complains they can't lose weight.

    She's talking about out there in the world. I think that was the premise of the thread. "Unpopular opinions."

    I agree that eating more is the solution to a lot of peoples' yo-yo dieting. I've stopped talking about food or nutrition or "diet" with anyone outside this site.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    Leigh14 wrote: »
    My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.

    I really think you have this backwards. I rarely if ever see people praised for eating under 1200 calories, and often see the opposite, with people jumping on the poster without knowing the whys. The only time I've seen negative about eating more is when the poster complains they can't lose weight.

    She's talking about out there in the world. I think that was the premise of the thread. "Unpopular opinions."

    I agree that eating more is the solution to a lot of peoples' yo-yo dieting. I've stopped talking about food or nutrition or "diet" with anyone outside this site.

    @Leigh14 apologies if I read that wrong. I've lost track of whether people are posting their own unpopular opinions, other people's unpopular opinions, or unpopular opinions encountered IRL. :)

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 32,394 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    Leigh14 wrote: »
    My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.

    I really think you have this backwards. I rarely if ever see people praised for eating under 1200 calories, and often see the opposite, with people jumping on the poster without knowing the whys. The only time I've seen negative about eating more is when the poster complains they can't lose weight.

    She's talking about out there in the world. I think that was the premise of the thread. "Unpopular opinions."

    I agree that eating more is the solution to a lot of peoples' yo-yo dieting. I've stopped talking about food or nutrition or "diet" with anyone outside this site.

    @Leigh14 apologies if I read that wrong. I've lost track of whether people are posting their own unpopular opinions, other people's unpopular opinions, or unpopular opinions encountered IRL. :)

    To be fair, lots of people on this site think 1200 is the only way and they don't believe us when we say, "eat more."

    Unfortunately, it does work. Until it doesn't, and then where do you go?

    I've lost weight on 1200, 1600, 1800, 2000. Today at maintenance I eat 1800-2300 net and I do fine maintaining. Context, I guess. :smile:
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    mph323 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    Leigh14 wrote: »
    My most unpopular "opinion" is that you need to eat more to lose weight, because science. Mention I'm eating 800 calories per day to lose weight? Cheers, praise, questions on how I'm doing it, what I'm eating, etc. Tell them I'm actually eating 2800 calories per day to lose weight? *crickets* Then the storm.

    I really think you have this backwards. I rarely if ever see people praised for eating under 1200 calories, and often see the opposite, with people jumping on the poster without knowing the whys. The only time I've seen negative about eating more is when the poster complains they can't lose weight.

    She's talking about out there in the world. I think that was the premise of the thread. "Unpopular opinions."

    I agree that eating more is the solution to a lot of peoples' yo-yo dieting. I've stopped talking about food or nutrition or "diet" with anyone outside this site.

    @Leigh14 apologies if I read that wrong. I've lost track of whether people are posting their own unpopular opinions, other people's unpopular opinions, or unpopular opinions encountered IRL. :)

    To be fair, lots of people on this site think 1200 is the only way and they don't believe us when we say, "eat more."

    Unfortunately, it does work. Until it doesn't, and then where do you go?

    I've lost weight on 1200, 1600, 1800, 2000. Today at maintenance I eat 1800-2300 net and I do fine maintaining. Context, I guess. :smile:

    Oh, I'm not disputing that 1200 calories or fewer is certainly appropriate for some people (me, for instance :) ), I was just commenting on the fact that I thought she meant that people on these boards generally applaud lower-calorie diets and disapprove of higher-calorie ones, which is opposite what (in my opinion - ha!) generally happens.

    <heads back to the kitchen to make a pot of really strong coffee because I appear to be having comprehension problems this morning>
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    I think most people look older after losing a substantial amount of weight. But everyone always comments WOW YOU LOOK SO MUCH YOUNGER. Are they just being nice, or do they really associate fatness with age so strongly that they can't see the effects of gravity on looser skin?

    Similarly, I usually think the 'before' picture looks more like someone I'd like to know. Kinder, more fun. I'm aware that this is my own prejudices based on how fat people have treated me better than thin people. Because I am fat.

    This having been said, I'm still super proud of everyone who loses a lot of weight, including myself! It's not all about looking younger, after all!

    Agreed. I KNOW I look older. I'm much more jowelly.
  • xmichaelyx
    xmichaelyx Posts: 883 Member
    On pregnancy:

    You're not eating for 2; you're eating for 1.1.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Enjcg5 wrote: »
    cqbkaju wrote: »
    But 20 lbs is a completely arbitrary choice to throw out there, even if you do admit it's completely arbitrary.
    But to your point, most of the studies I recall seeing made it clear that women gaining more than around 25lbs during pregnancy is completely unnecessary.

    They are not "eating for two."

    My wife gained so little weight that she didn't know she was pregnant until she went to the hospital with a kidney stone.
    But it wasn't a kidney stone; she delivered our perfectly healthy daughter not long afterwards.
    Yes, she was still having her period.

    Malnourished women in Third-World countries make new humans all the time without becoming unnecessarily fat in the process.
    They do it without eating whole boxes of crackers, tubs of ice cream, or anything else.

    No need to eat like a piggy -pregnant or not- just because you are "craving" something, eh?
    Now that is an "unpopular opinion" but the science backs my statement.

    Marmalade-Slow-Blink.gif

    It blows my mind that someone (and I know it happens) doesn't know they're pregnant until the baby comes.

    Was your wife overweight? I can't even.

    This has always baffled me. I've been pregnant 3 times. I understand that not all women experience the same exact signs but..... How do you not feel it move?! It's more than just feeling like you have the "bubble guts." It's kinda like something has invaded your body type of feeling! Aren't your breast really sore and don't you pee every hour? (FWIW- I gained 30-40lbs during pregnancies, max weight at full term was 170lbs with #3).

    Aside to this: Mrs Jruzer didn't know she was expecting until several months into pregnancy #1. It was a very stressful time for us, there was a lot going on, and there were some confusing, uh, indicators. It was a few months in before she really noticed that something unusual was going on and peed on a stick to confirm. Apprently this is more common than I knew. There's no way she wouldn't have known he was in there for all 9 months, though!

    Surprise baby is now 19, a college sophomore and an Eagle Scout.

    I am so jealous of women like your wife. I knew within weeks of being pregnant both times. If you get bad "morning" sickness and pregnancy-style acid reflux, you can't not know. I can see getting to the 4-6 month point without knowing if you didn't have to deal with those side effects though.
This discussion has been closed.