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
-
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »That picture shows the damaging effects of the chemical compound O2. Just think what that stuff may do to the human body on a cellular level.
I have looked into it, and in every SINGLE case of obesity on record, the subject had a history of long-term exposure to atmospheric O2.
I'm not going to overstate the link as this theory hasn't gained enough traction within the scientific community to see specific research initiated, but at this point, it is clear that O2 exposure correlates with unwanted weight gain.
Rflol!1 -
theresejesu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »joemac1988 wrote: »Mine is that everyone should do what makes them happy. Wanna be vegan? Great! Just don't try to talk me out of a burger. Love crossfit? Awesome! I like bodybuilding, ya'll have fun in your box. You think sugar and carbs will make you fat? That's your right...if you need me I'll be over here enjoying my poptarts. You think fasted cardio is more effective? Sweet, I eat as soon as I wake up so pretty unlikely for me. Etc, etc, etc.
Basically, live and let live. Crazy, right???
I 100% agree with this guy...
At the end of the day though, all any of us are trying to do is defend our respective fitness churches...
I'm just a sucker for a good debate
Rather than deal with "churches" and treat this like a matter of faith, I think I'd rather draw my conclusions based on the best available evidence. I'm not inclined to defend anything if there is reliable evidence that it might not be accurate or true.
Most people form their opinion and then migrate towards the latest research that supports their opinions... But surely not you.
The difference here is that I want to believe as you low carbers do, I want to believe that I can consume all the meat and dairy I want and that our animal products are not tainted to the point where they just might not be worth it... But I just no better, the fact is, imo, reality bites and are food and health industries are massively corrupt. To believe otherwise is just naive...
The money is behind meat and dairy and big agriculture, not behind Dr Greger... I'm sorry but we live in a time where you can't always trust the latest research...
I spend a fair amount of effort trying to be especially critical of supposed evidence that supports my opinions, but if you have instances where you perceive me to filtering research through my opinions I am open to hearing about it. There is always room for improvement.
By the way, I'm not a low carber. I actually get about 60% of my calories from carbohydrates.
What you seem to be saying is that it's impossible to know what the truth is, that we all have our "churches" and we should leave it at that. I disagree -- I think it's possible for humans to determine that a claim is true or untrue, to determine whether something is supported by evidence or not.
The ability to determine what is true is greatly limited by one's paradigm and how easily they are able to shift to, and consider new paradigms, or how entrenched they are in their own paradigm.
Some know they don't know what they don't know. Others are simply unaware they don't know what they don't know.
theresejesu wrote: »From what I've learned, the amount of weight lost by the two will be different based on those parameters. There are people who easily lose weight by cutting calories. There are others who struggle and don't seem to be able to make the same gains no matter how hard they try and this discourages them.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that calories "in" being less than calories "out" won't result in some degree of weight loss, but that's just it.
The degree of weight lost.
If the foods you are eating are fighting against your attempts to lose weight, you aren't going to see the same success as someone else who may be eating less of those types of foods. This is where these lectins from grains, legumes, and nightshades can play a very significant role in hindering our efforts.
Additionally, our microbiota can play a significant role as well. An unhealthy microbiota can hinder our attempts at weight loss. In fact, in studies done a few years ago Amandine Everard at the University of Louvain in Belgium discovered something important about Akkermancia muciniplila, a bacteria that (hopefully) inhabits our microbiota (in our intestines).
In experiments in mice, they found it interacts with genes. In mice administered Akkermancia m. they found it activated genes to induce an increase in the caoacity to burn fat. They fed the mice a diet high in calories to induce weight gain. The mice that received the Akkermancia m became half as fat as the mice who didn't receive it.
In humans they discovered levels of Akkermancia muciniplila, are high in thin people, and low in obese people.
Addotionally, it has been discovered that people have one of 3 basic enterotypes which affect how we utilize macro nutrients and produce and support helpful bacteria such as Akkermancia m.
As I said, it's much more complicated and intricate than just counting calories.
I strongly recommend the documentary
The Gut: Our Second Brain
where such discoveries as Akkermancia are discussed - available on Amazon Prime for those who have it.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?6 -
theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
Everything contributes to making one fat smh7 -
theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.7 -
singingflutelady wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
Everything contributes to making one fat smh
Well I agree. Even smells can trigger fat storage, etc.21 -
theresejesu wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
Everything contributes to making one fat smh
Well I agree. Even smells can trigger fat stirage, etc.
Um, wut?3 -
theresejesu wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
Everything contributes to making one fat smh
Eell I agree. Even smells can trigger fat stirage, etc.
No that was in regards to you singling out sugar when in fact if you are consuming more calories than you burn everything you eat is contributing to fat gain not just sugar2 -
theresejesu wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
Everything contributes to making one fat smh
Well I agree. Even smells can trigger fat stirage, etc.
Huh?1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.
People tend to focus more on sugar because the recommended American diet is so high in carbs which convert to glucose much more easily than say protein.14 -
theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.
People tend to focus more on sugar because the recommended American diet is so high in carbs which convert to glucose much more easily than say protein.
Guess whose diets are also high in carbs, even higher than the US? The blue zones, the healthiest and longest living places on earth.11 -
Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.
This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.15 -
theresejesu wrote: »Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.
This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.
NOT FAT burning. Change in water weight. That's it. I actually looked at the study. Not the Dailynews.uk clickbait article.11 -
theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.
People tend to focus more on sugar because the recommended American diet is so high in carbs which convert to glucose much more easily than say protein.
Not even close. The American diet composition is remarkably high in FAT, not carbohydrates.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1154
http://chartsbin.com/view/1158
Of course, this isn't the primary issue. The issue is the American diet is high in CALORIES.
http://chartsbin.com/view/116013 -
theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
Only if you eat it as part of a calorie surplus. And even then, it only partly contributes. All the other calories help out too!3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.
This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.
NOT FAT burning. Change in water weight. That's it. I actually looked at the study. Not the Dailynews.uk clickbait article.
If salt intake is high enough, the production of glucocorticoid hormones increase, which influence metabolism and immune function. This was one of the hypotheses offered in the article:
INCREASED SALT CONSUMPTION INDUCES BODY WATER CONSERVATION AND DECREASES FLUID INTAKE
published in JCI April 17, 2017
In followup animal studies on mice by Titze, one of the authors of the study above, he found that as he increased salt in their diet, the less water they drank, and discovered they were increasing production of glucocorticoid hormones which then broke down fat and muscle releasing water.
I'm not saying people should start drastically increasing their salt intake, as there are potential problems with increased glucocorticoid homrmone increases, such as type 2 diabetes, etc.
I do find this to be very interesting however.8 -
theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.
This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.
NOT FAT burning. Change in water weight. That's it. I actually looked at the study. Not the Dailynews.uk clickbait article.
If salt intake is high enough, the production of glucocorticoid hormones increase, which influence metabolism and immune function. This was one of the hypotheses offered in the article:
INCREASED SALT CONSUMPTION INDUCES BODY WATER CONSERVATION AND DECREASES FLUID INTAKE
published in JCI April 17, 2017
In followup animal studies on mice by Titze, one of the authors of the study above, he found that as he increased salt in their diet, the less water they drank, and discovered they were increasing production of glucocorticoid hormones which then broke down fat and muscle releasing water.
I'm not saying people should start drastically increasing their salt intake, as there are potential problems with increased glucocorticoid homrmone increases, such as type 2 diabetes, etc.
I do find this to be very interesting however.
None of which was supported by the human data.
6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.
This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.
NOT FAT burning. Change in water weight. That's it. I actually looked at the study. Not the Dailynews.uk clickbait article.
If salt intake is high enough, the production of glucocorticoid hormones increase, which influence metabolism and immune function. This was one of the hypotheses offered in the article:
INCREASED SALT CONSUMPTION INDUCES BODY WATER CONSERVATION AND DECREASES FLUID INTAKE
published in JCI April 17, 2017
In followup animal studies on mice by Titze, one of the authors of the study above, he found that as he increased salt in their diet, the less water they drank, and discovered they were increasing production of glucocorticoid hormones which then broke down fat and muscle releasing water.
I'm not saying people should start drastically increasing their salt intake, as there are potential problems with increased glucocorticoid homrmone increases, such as type 2 diabetes, etc.
I do find this to be very interesting however.
None of which was supported by the human data.
The hypothesis was indeed supported by the human data, it which it was stated:
"In addition, increased rhythmical glucocorticoid action may increase metabolic water production by promoting protein, fat, and sugar breakdown."3 -
theresejesu wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
Everything contributes to making one fat smh
Well I agree. Even smells can trigger fat storage, etc.
So smells can trigger fat storage, now? And what the etc. part?0 -
theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »Here is something interesting about salt. Evidently a higher salt intake can trigger fat burning. I read a news article recently where cosmonauts who were being given salt tablets in space to decrease fluid intake, were finding they were outputting more water in their urine than they could account for with intake. They were also finding they needed a higher caloric intake to maintain their weight.
This was extremely puzzling until it was realized that the ingestion of salt at that level was triggering the burning of stored fat, which released the water stored with it, which then was adding to their hydration.
NOT FAT burning. Change in water weight. That's it. I actually looked at the study. Not the Dailynews.uk clickbait article.
If salt intake is high enough, the production of glucocorticoid hormones increase, which influence metabolism and immune function. This was one of the hypotheses offered in the article:
INCREASED SALT CONSUMPTION INDUCES BODY WATER CONSERVATION AND DECREASES FLUID INTAKE
published in JCI April 17, 2017
In followup animal studies on mice by Titze, one of the authors of the study above, he found that as he increased salt in their diet, the less water they drank, and discovered they were increasing production of glucocorticoid hormones which then broke down fat and muscle releasing water.
I'm not saying people should start drastically increasing their salt intake, as there are potential problems with increased glucocorticoid homrmone increases, such as type 2 diabetes, etc.
I do find this to be very interesting however.
None of which was supported by the human data.
The hypothesis was indeed supported by the human data, it which it was stated:
"In addition, increased rhythmical glucocorticoid action may increase metabolic water production by promoting protein, fat, and sugar breakdown."
You seem to have significant issues with critical thinking and reading comprehension.
5
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