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
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »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?
Absolutely - I smell bacon and I eat it all. Same with pizza... it's like blood in the water for sharks. I imagine it would be a lot easier to avoid certain foods if they didn't smell so darned good.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Yep. I'm currently modeling my woe after one of the blue zone groups and I'm averaging over 200g of carbs a day. Still maintaining fine though, with a current bmi floating around a 20.4 -
I have medication induced hyponatremia. My diet is very high in sodium to combat this.
I wish this led to fat burning.9 -
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.
Nope. It was triggering appetite in response to the body breaking down muscle mass to deal with the increased salt.3 -
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.
We've discussed this study before. Here's a good piece on it (if the study is still available in full I cannot find it):
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-high-salt-diet-decreases-thirst-hunger.htmlIt takes a lot of energy to conserve water in the face of salt excretion. To do it, the body either must take in more fuel or break down muscle mass. "This predisposes to overeating," said the reports' senior author, Jens Titze, M.D., associate professor of Medicine and of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics....
Unexpectedly, when dietary salt was increased from six to 12 grams a day, the men drank less water, not more. That suggested they conserved or produced more water.
In a subsequent study in mice, the researchers showed that high salt induces a catabolic state driven by glucocorticoids that breaks down muscle protein, which is converted into urea by the liver. Urea enables the kidneys to reabsorb water and prevent body water loss while the salt is excreted.
Muscle wasting is a high price to pay for avoiding dehydration. The alternative is bringing in more fuel - eating more. That may be why the men in the study complained they were hungry.
Water conservation in response to a high-salt diet may have pathological consequences. Increased levels of glucocorticoids are an independent risk factor for diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease.
"We have always focused on the role of salt in arterial hypertension. Our findings suggest that there is much more to know—a high salt intake may predispose to metabolic syndrome," Titze said
So I would not recommend increasing salt as a weight loss trick. For other reasons if appropriate, sure.6 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »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/1160
On calories, I agree.
However, using your own examples, carbohydrates make up a larger percentage of total diet, and the fat intake doesn't appear remarkable at all unless you cherry-pick data. Remarkably high compared to Ethiopia? Sure. High compared to most of Europe? Not at all...6 -
lemurcat12 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.
We've discussed this study before. Here's a good piece on it (if the study is still available in full I cannot find it):
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-high-salt-diet-decreases-thirst-hunger.htmlIt takes a lot of energy to conserve water in the face of salt excretion. To do it, the body either must take in more fuel or break down muscle mass. "This predisposes to overeating," said the reports' senior author, Jens Titze, M.D., associate professor of Medicine and of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics....
Unexpectedly, when dietary salt was increased from six to 12 grams a day, the men drank less water, not more. That suggested they conserved or produced more water.
In a subsequent study in mice, the researchers showed that high salt induces a catabolic state driven by glucocorticoids that breaks down muscle protein, which is converted into urea by the liver. Urea enables the kidneys to reabsorb water and prevent body water loss while the salt is excreted.
Muscle wasting is a high price to pay for avoiding dehydration. The alternative is bringing in more fuel - eating more. That may be why the men in the study complained they were hungry.
Water conservation in response to a high-salt diet may have pathological consequences. Increased levels of glucocorticoids are an independent risk factor for diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease.
"We have always focused on the role of salt in arterial hypertension. Our findings suggest that there is much more to know—a high salt intake may predispose to metabolic syndrome," Titze said
So I would not recommend increasing salt as a weight loss trick. For other reasons if appropriate, sure.
And, as I mentioned, the results of significant increase in salt intake can be associated with negative consequences due to the increase in glucocorticoid hormones.
As I said, I find this all very interesting.
I've personally had to increase my salt intake due to autonomic nervous system dysfunction, and it does indeed help.
These studies have led me to realize I need to watch these other parameters more closely than I understood before.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »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.
If you say so.
Maybe read everything I said again?
The hypothesis was verified in animal models. There is significant concern regarding this effect in the human population as well due to the adverse effects such an increase in glucocorticoids can have on health. However, you are welcome to your opinion, as unfounded as it may be.
7 -
theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »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.
If you say so.
Maybe read everything I said again?
The hypothesis was verified in animal models. There is significant concern regarding this effect in the human population as well due to the adverse effects such an increase in glucocorticoids can have on health. However, you are welcome to your opinion, as unfounded as it may be.
animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior. If you had done the appropriate background, you would know this.
6 -
Issues with raised cortisol can inhibit fat burning, and this has been an observed effect that has been talked about on these boards before.
Many people report anecdotal incidents of losing weight after vacation, for example, or there are plenty of stories from the pressure-filled world of contest-prep where a "binge" will lead to the scale suddenly moving again. The reason? Reduced stress.
However, the inverse of lowering stress from a baseline normal rather than elevated back to normal doesn't hold true to my knowledge and I doubt you'd find anything to back that up in human studies.
You're welcome to try, though.
If that's what you're not asserting, forgive me if I've lost track of the point you're trying to make here.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »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.
If you say so.
Maybe read everything I said again?
The hypothesis was verified in animal models. There is significant concern regarding this effect in the human population as well due to the adverse effects such an increase in glucocorticoids can have on health. However, you are welcome to your opinion, as unfounded as it may be.
animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior. If you had done the appropriate background, you would know this.
Oh my goodness....... I guess the concern these researchers have for humans in regards to this issue means nothing?
Ok. . if you say so.....;)
7 -
If I want to test whether paper is weakened by soaking it in balsamic vinegar but, due to the price/value of balsamic vinegar I decide it's cheaper/better to run the experiment with tap water and extrapolate that vinegar would yield similar results, I likely wouldn't be far off. However...
If I want to study the effect of adding baking soda to balsamic vinegar but, due to the price/value of balsamic vinegar I decide it's cheaper/better to run the experiment with tap water and extrapolate that vinegar would yield similar results, things would be rather different.
Mice aren't humans. They aren't necessarily going to respond the same way that humans do. Depending on where you stand on animal experimentation (I'm in favor for medical research, opposed for cosmetic), it can be a necessary first step. But it's definitely not the last one.13 -
theresejesu wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »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.
If you say so.
Maybe read everything I said again?
The hypothesis was verified in animal models. There is significant concern regarding this effect in the human population as well due to the adverse effects such an increase in glucocorticoids can have on health. However, you are welcome to your opinion, as unfounded as it may be.
This is good advice - one of those "physician heal thyself moments".14 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »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/1160
On calories, I agree.
However, using your own examples, carbohydrates make up a larger percentage of total diet, and the fat intake doesn't appear remarkable at all unless you cherry-pick data. Remarkably high compared to Ethiopia? Sure. High compared to most of Europe? Not at all...
Looking at the most recent data (2005-2007), the United States is ranked 16th out of 176 by contribution of fat to dietary calorie intake. Going from lowest to highest on carb contribution, we are number 10. I mean, sure, there are higher, but we are WAY up there on the list.
If we limit ourselves to just the developed world, The United States still has a higher than average fat contribution and lower than average carb contribution. And despite this, our obesity rate is higher. Probably because we rank 1st in dietary energy consumption at 3770 kcal/person/day...9 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »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/1160
On calories, I agree.
However, using your own examples, carbohydrates make up a larger percentage of total diet, and the fat intake doesn't appear remarkable at all unless you cherry-pick data. Remarkably high compared to Ethiopia? Sure. High compared to most of Europe? Not at all...
Looking at the most recent data (2005-2007), the United States is ranked 16th out of 176 by contribution of fat to dietary calorie intake. Going from lowest to highest on carb contribution, we are number 10. I mean, sure, there are higher, but we are WAY up there on the list.
If we limit ourselves to just the developed world, The United States still has a higher than average fat contribution and lower than average carb contribution. And despite this, our obesity rate is higher. Probably because we rank 1st in dietary energy consumption at 3770 kcal/person/day...
I'm in agreement overall. It's the intersection that matters, rather than the isolated factors.1 -
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
Yesssss, I got a supporter. I love a debate so don't get me wrong; if I know the person, I'll argue bodybuilding vs. crossfit all day just for fun. I low-key love watching the crossfit games but don't tell anyone.
At the same time, if someone is trying to make an effort to live a healthier lifestyle I don't care how you do it, you do you.3 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »The_Enginerd wrote: »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/1160
On calories, I agree.
However, using your own examples, carbohydrates make up a larger percentage of total diet, and the fat intake doesn't appear remarkable at all unless you cherry-pick data. Remarkably high compared to Ethiopia? Sure. High compared to most of Europe? Not at all...
Looking at the most recent data (2005-2007), the United States is ranked 16th out of 176 by contribution of fat to dietary calorie intake. Going from lowest to highest on carb contribution, we are number 10. I mean, sure, there are higher, but we are WAY up there on the list.
If we limit ourselves to just the developed world, The United States still has a higher than average fat contribution and lower than average carb contribution. And despite this, our obesity rate is higher. Probably because we rank 1st in dietary energy consumption at 3770 kcal/person/day...
Apologies if this has been reported previously, but is there a decent source to find activity by country/region? My observation working in both the US and EU is that EU is far more active. US commutes by car even for short distances. The only studies I've found are self reported and highly dubious.0 -
Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.11
-
joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
Fat-shaming is NEVER okay.17 -
joemac1988 wrote: »Another unpopular opinion I have is that fat-shaming has its place as long as the person doesn't have a legitimate eating disorder or medical problem. Hey, I was obese and if it wasn't for being fat-shamed I'd be even bigger today instead of 195lbs and 10%bf with an addiction to nutrition and working out. So don't say I haven't walked in their shoes. The problem I have with it is your obesity is affecting EVERYONE. Medical costs, health insurance costs, fast food on every corner from demand, you flowing onto my lap on the plane, etc, etc, etc.
Yawn....another former fatty who's turned the self hate they had for themselves while obese into a judgmental attitude for those still struggling.
Look, you don't ever have the right to tell someone they're too fat. YOUR obesity ALSO affected EVERYONE while you were obese and if you got a kick in the pants and fixed it, good on ya. However, a kick in the pants doesn't work for everyone and, again, you aren't the one who gets to make that choice for other people.
For me, I don't approve of obesity, my own, or anyone else's. All the problems you listed are legitimate consequences of obesity. I would never try to shame someone into losing weight, however, and the person who tried to do so to me would find out just how mistaken they were in the assumption that they had any right to do so.
29
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.5K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.2K Fitness and Exercise
- 383 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.6K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 879 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions