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?
Options
Replies
-
SiegfriedXXL wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
I never implied that actually. In fact, I mentioned social media as a possible culprit. I also think that mental illness plays a role in what the bullying causes re:escalation.
I wouldn't want to give the impression that I am unsymathetic. I'm just genuinely puzzled as to what makes some people take severe, actual, bullying and get past it, and what makes other resort to violence, either towards themselves or others.
What makes anyone respond differently to similar stimulus?
I have a tendency to suffer bouts of clinical depression and was obviously suffering from that. That's a biochemical thing that you might not have experienced. When you add in the stuff I had going on at home and top it off with the stuff going on at school? I couldn't see any daylight.
I can only speak as someone who suffered depression and made a suicide attempt. I can't speak for anyone else. Depression lies to you. That's what was different for me. Instead of making you stronger, hardships make you weaker when you're depressed.12 -
SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll 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.
Not to beat a dead, or dumpy horse, but context is everything. If my dad told me I was getting dumpy (btw, he has) I would take it as coming from a family member concerned about me. Some a$$hat on the street calling me dumpy has no entree into my life or circumstances and therefore no right to say it. The motives are different. One is my dad worried about my health. The other is an idiot trying to shame me. Again, I have plenty of tickets to Hell to give to people like the latter.
Exactly.1 -
Some believe hunger is a fearful terrible thing to be avoided at all costs.
I kinda like it. A little twinge in my tummy makes me feel pleased with myself and I enjoy my food more when I do eat it.
Actually I feel much the same way. Sometimes I find that hunger focuses me, makes food taste better and more enjoyable. I vastly prefer a big meal or two to several small bites (and I almost never "snack").2 -
My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.51
-
stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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.
Which carbs do they eat?
Why do you care, you simply said the US diet is high in carbs.
I don't see how that response is helpful in any way.2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »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.
And none of the other reasons you quoted above negate the point I was making which is why it was unnecessary to include them.
And the portion I did quote does indeed negate his claim. The other factors have no relevance to his claim, and conflating issues doesn't make them have any relevance, it just confuses the picture.
The reason his claim is false is precisely because
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]/u] 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
That does not sound at all the same as
"animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior."
How can mice share many processes with humans, with their genetic, biologic and behavior characteristics closely resembling those of humans, and end up with almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolism?
That makes no logical sense.
So which should we believe?
1 -
2
-
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.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that they were considering 6 g salt a day "low salt" and 12 g "high salt"
For reference, the RDA is for most people 1.5 to 2 grams daily.
I don't think the were calling 6g/day "low" salt.
They were using two levels of increased salt intake and comparing results.0 -
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.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
The CICO method mechanizes our bodies. But our bodies aren't machines, not in such a simplistic sense. Thoughts, emotions, activities, hormonal profile, circadian rhythm, food choices (which can even switch on and off genes - epigenetics), the bacteria in our guts which affect our immune system and brain influencing how we feel and perceive and react to our world: all these affect our energy requirements, and thus our caloric needs.
We are much more complicated than a simple CICO can account for. For some, it works great. For others, though, it doesn't, because it simply can't account for all those variables.
What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet. Fructose, for instance, doesn't do a great job lowering the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
People look at what happens to them and then try to use their personal experience as a plumbline for everyone else without considering their individual experience is governed by a variety of factors they aren't even aware of, factors which vary from individual to individual. We are all subject to falling into this trap, and we probably all do from time to time. The danger is first to ourselves when we allow ourselves to become judgemental of others instead of understanding, and second, this can become damaging to the other.
This is true, but people get mired in the irrelevant details as I suspect you are doing now.
Pareto these variables: CI, CO, thoughts, emotions, activities, hormones, cricadian rhythm, macros, micros, epigenetics, microbiome, etc.
CI and CO combined amount to >80% of impact.
Hormones 5-10%
The rest ~1%
What variables are you going to prioritize?
I have to disagree, I don't believe I'm getting mired in irrelevant details at all. How are these factors irrelevant?
If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days? You would need to do lab tests and calculations. The best we can do is to approximate.
For instance,
"..a greater intake of sugar calories stimulates more insulin resistance and more fat storage than other types of calories do, even when the total calorie intake remains the same."
The Salt Fix
Author referencing study of which he was a co-author:
Added Fructose: a principle driver of type 2 diabetes mellitus and it's consequences
Mayo Clin. Proc 90 (3): 372-381.
There is much more going on in our bodies than simple CICO can account for.11 -
theresejesu wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »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.
And none of the other reasons you quoted above negate the point I was making which is why it was unnecessary to include them.
And the portion I did quote does indeed negate his claim. The other factors have no relevance to his claim, and conflating issues doesn't make them have any relevance, it just confuses the picture.
The reason his claim is false is precisely because
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]/u] 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
That does not sound at all the same as
"animal trials. especially mice, have almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolic behavior."
How can mice share many processes with humans, with their genetic, biologic and behavior characteristics closely resembling those of humans, and end up with almost zero correlation or relevance to human metabolism?
That makes no logical sense.
So which should we believe?
Symptoms of genetic/biological/behavior in a primarily seed/nut eating mammal correlate very poorly to metabolic conditions of a meat/grain/vegetable heavy omnivore.
For medical safety testing mice are an adequate first line of testing. For diet/health markers they're very poor.7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I think if you have an obese child you are a poor parent
I disagree, My mum did all she could to get me to eat better, I would buy sweets etc from the shop without her knowing, plus my dad's side of the family are all big so that did not help me there but I am not about to blame my weight on my dad's side, I know I did wrong, I would sneak food whenever I could, have double servings at school, sneak down in the middle of the night and eat food, she did everything she could to stop me gaining weight and to lose it, I still remember her forcing me to do aerobics workouts with her, the arguments it caused.
She is not a poor parent she was the best parent I could ever ask for, please don't blame the parents as they can do everything to stop their child gaining weight but if they want food they will sneak it, lie about it etc.
I know some parents do give into their kids and are labeled feeders etc but not all parents are like this at all.
Take care.11 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?19 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
I'm pretty sure that's exactly the assertion that was made. It seems that there's an utter breakdown in communication.9 -
theresejesu wrote: »If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days?
You seem to be exaggerating how much they affect metabolism. (How many calories we burn is going to be most affected by set things and movement.)
More significantly, you know how many calories you burn over a period of time (and on average over shorter periods of time) by results. They should not vary dramatically from week to week if movement is constant.
The idea that you need to know exactly for any practical purpose isn't right.
Thus, CICO works even though we will not know exact numbers or every input.9 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
If that's where your head goes... More broadly, there are historically people who are in a position to say what they want, and people who were in a position to have to cop it.
Thing is, there was never a time where people were more free to say what they want than now, save for the fact there was a much bigger imbalance of power. "Political correctness" isn't the restraint of people's ability to say what they want - it's the term being used by people who believe they should be able to say what they want without push back when they're called out on their rudeness/impropriety/bullcrap by people who are finally saying "you know what? I don't have to take your crap and neither does anyone else".
I find it bizarre that at the same time as people seem to bemoan the lack of manners in the younger generations, they also mourn the fact that they apparently used to allowed to be as rude an insulting as they want, and it hurts their poor little feelings that they're not allowed to be asshats anymore, without being called out for it.
There has never been, in hundreds of years of civilization, less social rules and restrictions on interactions between people, yet it seems that one of the loudest complaints is that they're not allowed to be ruder, more harsh, more confrontational. What a wonderful world full of freedom we live in. If only people would stand up for 'rights' that actually make the world a better place.
45 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
So if I’m interpreting this correctly, those who fondly recall the days before political correctness are basically just white males who would routinely say inappropriate racist or sexist remarks to victims who were powerless to respond? Seriously?
If that's where your head goes... More broadly, there are historically people who are in a position to say what they want, and people who were in a position to have to cop it.
Thing is, there was never a time where people were more free to say what they want than now, save for the fact there was a much bigger imbalance of power. "Political correctness" isn't the restraint of people's ability to say what they want - it's the term being used by people who believe they should be able to say what they want without push back when they're called out on their rudeness/impropriety/bullcrap by people who are finally saying "you know what? I don't have to take your crap and neither does anyone else".
It's exactly a restraint on ability to say what I want and need. As a supervisor/manager/leader, if I have two subordinates who are underperforming, and one of them generally fits the same demographics as I do and one does not. IF I provide each of them with correction and guidance for success, in order to prevent having a formal complaint filed, I must have at least one witness when counseling the one who does not match my demographic, to mitigate the risk of a discrimination claim being filed. Even though they are both underperforming in the exact same way, and I follow the exact same script, If there is not a witness(and even if there is) there is a substantial possibility that I will be accused of making the correction due to demographic and not performance reasons.
It's disruptive and counterproductive.17 -
theresejesu 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.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
The CICO method mechanizes our bodies. But our bodies aren't machines, not in such a simplistic sense. Thoughts, emotions, activities, hormonal profile, circadian rhythm, food choices (which can even switch on and off genes - epigenetics), the bacteria in our guts which affect our immune system and brain influencing how we feel and perceive and react to our world: all these affect our energy requirements, and thus our caloric needs.
We are much more complicated than a simple CICO can account for. For some, it works great. For others, though, it doesn't, because it simply can't account for all those variables.
What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet. Fructose, for instance, doesn't do a great job lowering the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
People look at what happens to them and then try to use their personal experience as a plumbline for everyone else without considering their individual experience is governed by a variety of factors they aren't even aware of, factors which vary from individual to individual. We are all subject to falling into this trap, and we probably all do from time to time. The danger is first to ourselves when we allow ourselves to become judgemental of others instead of understanding, and second, this can become damaging to the other.
This is true, but people get mired in the irrelevant details as I suspect you are doing now.
Pareto these variables: CI, CO, thoughts, emotions, activities, hormones, cricadian rhythm, macros, micros, epigenetics, microbiome, etc.
CI and CO combined amount to >80% of impact.
Hormones 5-10%
The rest ~1%
What variables are you going to prioritize?
I have to disagree, I don't believe I'm getting mired in irrelevant details at all. How are these factors irrelevant?
If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days? You would need to do lab tests and calculations. The best we can do is to approximate.
For instance,
"..a greater intake of sugar calories stimulates more insulin resistance and more fat storage than other types of calories do, even when the total calorie intake remains the same."
The Salt Fix
Author referencing study of which he was a co-author:
Added Fructose: a principle driver of type 2 diabetes mellitus and it's consequences
Mayo Clin. Proc 90 (3): 372-381.
There is much more going on in our bodies than simple CICO can account for.
Do you know what a Pareto analysis is?
As has been discussed many times on these boards, the fact that CO cannot be measured to the decimal point does not invalidate CICO. Knowing an approximate amount of how many calories an individual burns and being able to influence the energy balance by consuming the proper amount of calories in, on a consistent basis, is sufficient. Are there some variables that affect that energy balance? Yes. But those variables are not statistically significant to negate the overwhelming influence of having a balanced CICO relationship. That's what the Pareto comment was directed at. If you were to plot the actual amount of impact on a graph that each of those factors had on weight, the parts you are fixated on account for an extremely small percentage of the total. In other words, don't major in the minors, which is what people often tend to do when they've been unsuccessful at using the basic principle of CICO. They start looking for bogeymen to invalidate CICO, or to suggest it doesn't work for everyone, or that it isn't the "whole story".
19 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that generally, when people bemoan the fact that the world is too politically correct these days and they yearn for the good old days where people could say what they mean and not be taken to task for it, what they're really missing is the "good old days" when people like them were in a position where they could say whatever they pleased, and the people who they said it to were in a position where they were not able to speak up and tell them to *kitten* off.
No, I miss being able to speak freely without x,y,z group crying feelings hurt, racism, insert any other grievance...8 -
theresejesu wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »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.
Actually, it seems just the smell itself is enough, no food needed. I'll have to find the reference.
I'd be interested in seeing this.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »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.
Actually, it seems just the smell itself is enough, no food needed. I'll have to find the reference.
I'd be interested in seeing this.
It was rats.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions