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
-
stanmann571 wrote: »
I thought I saw a warning, but I couldn't find a better resolution image to confirm it.
Ah, actually my mistake - it's not a warning, just an explanation of the "*". It's a certification that the figures have been checked... my point still stands. Neither of the advertisement is stating that smoking is good/healthy.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »
Lamb and beef naturally contain small amounts of trans fats and several food dyes are extracts from vegetables (beetroot and carrots for example) and insects (cochineal).
It's present in small amounts in some plant foods too (Cronometer shows I've had a bit over the last week and I don't eat animal products).0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...
Yeah - that's marketing "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV", not science.4 -
jseams1234 wrote: »
"Less irritating" = still irritating, just less than other brands. There is also a Surgeons General warning on that advertisement.
I know Doctors even today that smoke. Just because they participate in a behavior doesn't mean that there is no risk associated with it.
These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...
4 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
These advertise that smoking has no "adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses..." and that smoking will "give your throat a vacation". Pretty indefensible in light of modern medical knowledge, wouldn't you agree? Yet I bet that if MFP was in existence in this era a lot of people would be bashing anti-smokers because tobacco is natural and smoke exists in nature...
Marketing and advertising.
Rarely confused with a scientific journal.9 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...
Ad campaigns like that certainly contributed to the general populace's confusion about the risks of smoking. Just like people like Dr. Oz are contributing to misinformation today.
However, ignorance that M.D.s are not a reference for scientific evidence doesn't change the fact that no respectable scientific study ever claimed that smoking was good for your health.9 -
Yes, marketing and advertising that resulted in millions of deaths and multi-billion dollar lawsuits.
Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.
Problem(s) found.
1: No 10 year studies. Supposedly a 10 [i[]month[/i] study. So, it doesn't actually say what you claim.
2: Just because they said so, doesn't mean any of it's true. There may or may not have been a "medical specialist" - whatever the *puppy* that means - involved. There may or may not have been any supposed study.
Don't believe everything you see/hear - especially in advertising.6 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
Yes, marketing and advertising that resulted in millions of deaths and multi-billion dollar lawsuits.
Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.
What's your point? Can you cite an academic study showing that smoking cigarettes are beneficial for health?
Big government and big business both love an uneducated population.
The average MFP user has more knowledge of nutrition and weight management than your average physician.6 -
Problem(s) found.
1: No 10 year studies. Supposedly a 10 [i[]month[/i] study. So, it doesn't actually say what you claim.
2: Just because they said so, doesn't mean any of it's true. There may or may not have been a "medical specialist" - whatever the *puppy* that means - involved. There may or may not have been any supposed study.
Don't believe everything you see/hear - especially in advertising.
1) - you are right, the average smoking habit per smoker was over 10 years.
2) If you Google "doctors smoking" and look at the images, there are pages and pages of these ads featuring doctors. Whether they had information that would be acceptable today as a "scientific study" or not, they apparently believed what they were endorsing and put their professional reputations on the line to advocate for smoking. It was accepted by the medical community that cigarettes were safe for decades, and we all know that to be untrue (I would hope).3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
It's present in small amounts in some plant foods too (Cronometer shows I've had a bit over the last week and I don't eat animal products).
Cronometer shows there are trace amounts in mustard and sunflower oil, even if they don't register in grams, so I wouldn't be surprised they're found in some other non-animal sources. Generally, I find fried foods register on the trans fat scale regardless of their origin.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
Yes, marketing and advertising that resulted in millions of deaths and multi-billion dollar lawsuits.
Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.
Explain to me how this in any way supports 'science claimed that smoking was good for your health'?
No one is arguing that there were ad campaigns that said it, or MDs that participated, or that the general populace is woefully ignorant about whom to trust for proper scientific references.
If that study they mention wasn't actually published in a decently respectable peer reviewed journal (and I can about guarantee it wasn't because there's not so much as a journal referenced) then it means nothing. It has about as much worth as the results of a politico poll. Less, since at least politico publishes their methods for 'transparency'.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
1) - you are right, the average smoking habit per smoker was over 10 years.
2) If you Google "doctors smoking" and look at the images, there are pages and pages of these ads featuring doctors. Whether they had information that would be acceptable today as a "scientific study" or not, they apparently believed what they were endorsing and put their professional reputations on the line to advocate for smoking. It was accepted by the medical community that cigarettes were safe for decades, and we all know that to be untrue (I would hope).
Pages and pages of old cartoon drawings, and that's what you're putting up as proof? Seriously?
4 -
*unpopular*
So. I lost a lot of weight ten years ago. The people who knew me when I was 220 often are incredulous that I lost and kept the weight off.
Every. Single. One. Does not believe me that I counted calories. They all have a better idea, yet most are just getting bigger. I don't get it, and I've stopped discussing it, but at least once a week someone challenges my method/calorie counting.
Whatever, you jerk.
Thanks. I needed that.23 -
Pages and pages of old cartoon drawings, and that's what you're putting up as proof? Seriously?
That is very clear proof that medical professionals believed that smoking was not a health hazard during those eras. Seriously.6 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
Yes, marketing and advertising that resulted in millions of deaths and multi-billion dollar lawsuits.
Real doctors were associated with this. The general public doesn't read scientific journals, but they trust their doctors. The Chesterfield ad cites "medical specialist reports" and 10 year studies on smokers.
Yes, real doctors. But just because someone is a real doctor doesn't render their opinion useful or relevant.
My optometrist may offer opinions on my diet/weight/exercise, and I'll smile and nod, unless the opinion is egregiously wrong.
My dentist may offer an opinion on my weight/joint mobility/activity level and again... Smile and nod.
Doctors are people too.
And most doctors(except cancer/cardiologists) smoke... A LOT. So do most nurses. It's often the thing that keeps them from going home and smoking a shotgun. People in high stress, high tension work, don't always practice what they know or what they preach.3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
That is very clear proof that medical professionals believed that smoking was not a health hazard during those eras. Seriously.
*some* medical professionals1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...
That's just advertising. Neither of those, btw, claim that doctors say that cigarettes are good for you. The first one claims that x number of physicians say that a particular brand is less bad for you and the second one simply claims that doctors have bad habits and among the ones who smoke, more like a particular brand. Advertising has always been about manipulating the perceptions of the audience.9 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
It's often cheaper to settle than to fight.
Although not always.
See the Ford Pinto case study.
Had they not gone through the trouble of determining that it would be cheaper to pay off the lawsuits than fight/fix the issue they would have done quite well.
But the larger question is: if the food company is doing nothing wrong by adding MSG to their food, why would they be willing to pay a large settlement for failing to disclose it?0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
That is very clear proof that medical professionals believed that smoking was not a health hazard during those eras. Seriously.
It has always been known to be a hazard, but again it's a matter of risk/reward. Cigarettes have a known calming effect. Even though much of this is psychological or associated with the activity of relaxed, conscious breathing. At that time it was associated with a host of lung diseases, but the average life span wasn't as long either (age 61-64). Much of the increases in cancer we see today are primarily due to two factors - increased longevity and increased detection methods.0 -
Hey, this real Doctor smoked crack and distributed it to his patients. Is this a medical community endorsement?
http://www.timesnews.net/News/2014/09/23/Crack-smoking-Greeneville-doctor-sentenced-to-24-months
8 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
But the larger question is: if the food company is doing nothing wrong by adding MSG to their food, why would they be willing to pay a large settlement for failing to disclose it?
Because of a jury of 12 in a civil trial.
12 of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Be9f7Ovgg 9 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
But the larger question is: if the food company is doing nothing wrong by adding MSG to their food, why would they be willing to pay a large settlement for failing to disclose it?
Mislabelling is something wrong in itself, though. Doesn't mean the ingredient is inherently harmful.
Water is an inoffensive substance, no? And yet, being found to have been bulking out food products with water without declaring it could land you in hot water (sorry).
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/06/supermarket-frozen-chicken-breasts-water6 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
Doctors, who are the face of medical science to the general public, were certainly stating this in the not too distant past...
Oh my god. I was just watching the Mad Men episode where they came up with the "It's Toasted" marketing campaign.
3 -
The fact that some people still confuse advertising for science 50 or 60 years later is telling, no?19
-
diannethegeek wrote: »The fact that some people still confuse advertising for science 50 or 60 years later is telling, no?
Certainly confirms in my mind that basic science education is not improving. Not that I needed convincing.7 -
diannethegeek wrote: »The fact that some people still confuse advertising for science 50 or 60 years later is telling, no?
In that era, the public didn't have the same access to information that we do. A person in 1950 relied solely upon their family doctor for medical information, they weren't able to look something up on WebMD or Google a medical journal. Placing actual doctors in ads was a brilliant strategy by the tobacco companies and kept their profits up for an additional few decades. The medical profession as a whole, including doctors, the AMA, and state medical boards, were useful idiots to the tobacco companies until the early 1970s.8 -
Every product has an inherent risk/reward.
DDT is singly responsible for saving countless lives due to malaria reduction. Was it worth the risk? Scientific evidence says yes. Media hyperbole says no.
No hall of science ever stated that cigarettes were good for you health. This is hyperbolic and patently false.
BPA is safe in the regulated dosage and form and a critical binding agent used in several medical products. Don't confuse scientific output with media hyperbole.
DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.
Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.
15 -
DDT is banned because it killed animals, such as bald eagles, pet dogs, osprey and other animals. Banning it helped save the bald eagle from getting killed by its use. It wasn't worth the risk since it's now banned in the US. The negative effects far outweighed the positive ones. That's why we no longer use it. I'm glad that DDT is banned as it has polluted rivers and killed fish and contaminated everything and killed everything in its path. There obviously are safer pesticides and that's what we use today. There were more risks than rewards.
Educating yourself on the subject would help. I learned about it in chemistry classes and then read about it on my own to understand it further. I've never heard of people defending its use until now.
You should probably educate yourself. instead of spouting talking points.
There aren't more effective pesticides and there aren't really many that are safer.
Had it not been banned due to ignorant objections such as you have put forth, Malaria would have been eradicated worldwide.13 -
...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.9K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions