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?

1128129131133134358

Replies

  • richardgavel
    richardgavel Posts: 1,000 Member
    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?

    When I walk into a Krispy Kreme and smells the hot donuts, I joke that I gain a pound or two just from that.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    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.

    I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.

    Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now

    The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.

    Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.

    This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.

    I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)

    But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.

    Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.

    Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.

    Or unfortunately it can be a pretty good description of someone's actions, similar to victim mentality.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    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.

    I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.

    Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now

    The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.

    Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.

    This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.

    I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)

    But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.

    Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.

    Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.

    Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?

    That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)

    I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.
  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    edited July 2017
    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.

    You're absolutely right, mice aren't humans. It seems to me that the real question is why, then, they are one of the mammals used in studies before they progress to human studies? 95% of test animals are mice and rats. Why?

    Among other reasons:

      "Another reason rodents are used as models in medical testing is that their genetic, biological and behavior characteristics closely resemble those of humans, and many symptoms of human conditions can be replicated in mice and rats. "Rats and mice are mammals that share many processes with humans and are appropriate for use to answer many research questions," said Jenny Haliski, a representative for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare."

    https://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

    We can't automatically say that just because something works a certain way in mice that it's going to work the exact same way in humans. That said, however, mice are used because the way things work are so similar to humans, and, as stated above, they "are appropriate for use to answer many research questions."

    That's why I find these studies on salt interesting, and why researchers are both excited and concerned about the implications for humans.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    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.

    I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.

    Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now

    The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.

    Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.

    This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.

    I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)

    But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.

    Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.

    Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.

    Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?

    That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)

    I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.

    The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.

    There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.

    Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?

    The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.
  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    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. :/

    I 100% agree. I think those who engage in this type of behavior have some need to make themselves feel superior by putting another down. It's abusive and damaging. (This is probably also an unpopular opinion.)
  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    WinoGelato 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...

    LOL - the person you are responding to is vegan.

    So what... I'm speaking to the group

    Also fairly sure little to no one in this whole discussion besides stanmann is/has done low carb at all. We just don't like BS.

    What? I'm doing low carb, high fat right now.....
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,285 Member
    But that's far from the only reason. From that same source:
    Scientists and researchers rely on mice and rats for several reasons. One is convenience: rodents are small, easily housed and maintained, and adapt well to new surroundings. They also reproduce quickly and have a short lifespan of two to three years, so several generations of mice can be observed in a relatively short period of time.

    Mice and rats are also relatively inexpensive and can be bought in large quantities from commercial producers that breed rodents specifically for research. The rodents are also generally mild-tempered and docile, making them easy for researchers to handle, although some types of mice and rats can be more difficult to restrain than others.

    Most of the mice and rats used in medical trials are inbred so that, other than sex differences, they are almost identical genetically. This helps make the results of medical trials more uniform, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute. As a minimum requirement, mice used in experiments must be of the same purebred species.

    So, besides the reason you quoted above, they're cheap, easy to house and maintain, adaptable, short-lived, malleable, and frequently inbred. I don't think these other factors irrelevant, if @stanmann571 is correct in stating that
    animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior.
    .
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    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.

    I remember a world where everyone wasn't so damned fragile, where people weren't obsessed with political correctness, and (gasp) people communicated honestly. Tactful, honest, constructive criticism has a place in society and redacting honesty from communication to spare feelings can (and has) enable(d) people to comfortably engage in destructive behavior and suffer real damage that is far beyond anything that words can inflict upon them.

    Yeah, the PE teacher told the kids who couldn't run a mile they were out of shape. Maybe had them run extra to fix the issue instead of letting them sit in the shade or stroll around the track like we do now

    The problem with the snowflaking of America is that this generation has lost their resiliency to mean words. Kids are killing themselves over verbal bullying and shaming that wouldn't have even ruined my day when I was a kid.

    Hmm. Kids weren't bothered at all by bullying back in the good old days is definitely NOT the world I grew up in. People were less likely to give those kids a recourse and more likely to let them think if they were made fun of daily to an intolerable degree or even physically attacked regularly it was their own fault, and something more to feel shame about, yeah. I recall being regularly made miserable to the point I was basically sick in school for a period of time and hiding it from my parents since I didn't want them to also know I was a loser.

    This was not a positive experience for me that made me a better and stronger person later in life. I think I would have been stronger in some ways if my parents had had a clue (or the teachers had, or had cared) and I'd been moved to a different school or class, I dunno. I do know it messed me up to some degree into my adulthood.

    I was never fat as a kid, for the record. (Did this play into why I emotionally ate and later got fat? Who knows, I wouldn't say it did or didn't and that's something I can work on and fix.)

    But sneering at kids who are victims of bullying is really lame. As is being unaware that it can be a problem.

    Strawman alert. This is not the issue at hand, but the process that was put into place handling bullying.

    Calling someone's behavior a symptom of the "snowflaking of America" can legitimately be read as a sneer. It might not have been how it was meant, but "snowflake" is commonly used to demean people.

    Let's establish the parameters then. If you need a safe space when confronted with an opposing view is the term appropriate?

    That's not what we are talking about. (Seems like the people involved in this debate aren't frightened of hearing opposing views and standing up for what we think, no?)

    I'm specifically talking about the comment I quoted.

    The term bully has been used by snowflakes in these circumstances, so the definition and parameters have certainly expanded in a generation.

    There is certainly a correlation between the increased ease of life in Western civilization and the increase in snowflakes. Causation could never be proven as the entire concept is subjective and only exists when the individuals allow bullying to occur. In the case of the anti-bullying campaign this made the issue profoundly worse. Expanding the definition of bullying to a completely subjective behavior and offering no corrective measure.

    Are you arguing that bullying isn't a problem? Or are you arguing that we now define behavior as bullying that we wouldn't have in the past?

    The term "snowflake" means so many different things to people online, it's difficult for me to tell exactly what it means to you.

    I have seen the term 'bullying' applied to something as simple as strongly disagreeing with someone, so I would say that what is classified as 'bullying' today has a much broader definition than what our generation would have called 'bullying'.

    I agree with this. The same with "shaming" and "judging" - these were once very grave acts that had very heavy, serious connotations. Now the most benign comments are found to be the decimators of self-esteem and spark (faux?) outrage about sensitivity and self-esteem.

    I referenced a dadbod as being "dumpy" earlier in this thread and was accused of "body shaming". My dad actually told me I was getting dumpy in my 20s because...I was getting dumpy. It stung a little and then I got over it.

    And I'm guessing you did something about the getting dumpy.
This discussion has been closed.