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
1…145146148150151…358

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    sophie9492015 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    sophie9492015 wrote: »
    Yes you can certainly argue that all foods can be fattening but you'd have to eat a shitload more chicken and salad than doughnuts to gain weight.
    sophie9492015 wrote: »
    Also the majority of people don't count their calories therefore eating more "fattening" foods like pizza and KFC will make most people gain weight. Therefore generally they are fattening.
    Thats why we have such a big problem with obesity because these foods are so readily available and heavily advertised.

    you really don't get it do you....

    food itself is not fattening. Period end of discussion.

    The Quantity aka amount, total volume of the food eaten is what is causing the weight gain.

    I can eat appx 10-15 plain cake dunkin donuts a day and still lose weight...each donut is 160 calories..

    As well eating more of any food will make you gain weight it doesn't have to be KFC or Pizza...there is nothing wrong with either of those things...

    There is a problem in NA with obesity because of lack of education about nutrition and how to maintain or lose weight and your posts are proving that point quite nicely..thanks you.

    Isn't this just an argument in semantics?

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fattening
    fattening
    adjective us ​ /ˈfæt·ən·ɪŋ/
    ​(of food) containing a lot of fat, sugar, etc., that would make you fatter if you ate a lot of it:

    Sure, you could probably eat enough of any food to get fatter (though honestly that is arguable) but I think most people know what someone means when they say "fattening". It's almost always calorie dense and nutrient poor.

    No, you'd think so but no.. they rekon KFC isnt fattening.

    I don't like KFC, so it's not fattening to me. I'd not eat more than a bit of it. I'm picky about my fried chicken.

    Is fried chicken calorie dense? Obviously.

    Is every single thing at KFC calorie dense (i.e., "fattening")? I doubt it, but haven't been to a KFC for maybe 20 years, so dunno.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    jessiferrrb wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Is a Greek yoghurt sandwich exactly what it sounds like?

    Oh it's how we've always traditionally eaten greek yogurt: plain, full fat, savory, salted and with bread. More like a spread or a dip than something you eat with a spoon. Usually with olive oil and sometimes with deli and tomato or some other enhancers in the sandwich.

    ETA: Google "Labneh".

    i love labneh! with some sliced cucumbers and red onions and black pepper that sounds amazing.

    Duly noted for my cuke issues...:)

    Mom used to make me "cucumber boats" with it. Slice in half lengthwise, spoon out some of the center, fill with a mix of labneh and mint.

    Are the any dishes where labneh is eaten with cooked vegetables? My IBS doesn't get along well with raw veggies. I'd like some ideas to build a meal around it.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    I'm sure you meant to post the OED definition to strengthen the point of it being a perfectly fine word. The fact that they use a reference from an 1800's medical textbook isn't filling me with confidence as to the validity of the word.

    That pretty much invalidates every word in the OED and therefore the English language!

    Those references aren't there as citations in the standard, as stated by Nuffield, in the publication Broscience Nonsense, issue 38, 2001 sense.

    The OED always quotes the earliest recorded usages of words, to demonstrate how long the word has been in use for the etymologists amongst us. (Or people just trying to write historically accurate fiction.) It's kind of its selling point for a subscription.



    If that's the way they're using it then this definition is a bit lackluster.
    And doesn't support that certain things are inherently "fattening" = "making you fat". Cause this brings us around the circle again to the fact that nothing makes you fat by itself, you need to overeat.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    kristen8000 wrote: »

    I don't believe you can be obese and healthy.

    The man in the picture under my name was obese when that photo was taken.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,213 Member
    Options

    stevencloser wrote: »
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    I'm sure you meant to post the OED definition to strengthen the point of it being a perfectly fine word. The fact that they use a reference from an 1800's medical textbook isn't filling me with confidence as to the validity of the word.

    That pretty much invalidates every word in the OED and therefore the English language!

    Those references aren't there as citations in the standard, as stated by Nuffield, in the publication Broscience Nonsense, issue 38, 2001 sense.

    The OED always quotes the earliest recorded usages of words, to demonstrate how long the word has been in use for the etymologists amongst us. (Or people just trying to write historically accurate fiction.) It's kind of its selling point for a subscription.



    If that's the way they're using it then this definition is a bit lackluster.
    And doesn't support that certain things are inherently "fattening" = "making you fat". Cause this brings us around the circle again to the fact that nothing makes you fat by itself, you need to overeat.
    The way they're using what? Fattening?

    Fattening has not been, until recent times, a very controversial word. That's why each OED definition is three words or shorter.

    I thonk you misunderstand which dog I own in this fight. I'm not much interested in the biological discussion whether food is fattening; I'm more interested in the linguistic side, thus the provision of the OED entry.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I have struggled with emotional eating. I still think claiming that some kind of "epidemic" of emotional eating (which probably is common, sure) is why the obesity rate is higher now is odd. I also think it's really odd to go to emotional eating from the posts on experiencing pleasure from food.

    IME, emotional eating isn't about enjoying food at all. It's about self comfort and stuffing feelings. To claim it's about appreciating food strikes me as rather like thinking that alcohol abuse is fundamentally about being an oenophile or enjoying the taste of craft beers.

    Humans are good at using all kinds of things to dysfunctionally deal with feelings, sure, and I doubt the tendency to do that has changed much over time. (I used to do it with food even as a teen, when I wasn't fat at all, so it also does not necessarily result in obesity.)

    Why people are obese now is because food is really easily available and low cost (including the time of preparation), it tends to be around a lot and there are few cultural restrictions on eating, servings and the calorie costs of the most easily available foods are generally up, and people don't really notice, and activity that is required in daily life today is really low and for some people not easy to get without making an effort. Culturally hedonic eating is somewhat encouraged and mindless eating is common.

    Indeed, I suspect mindless eating is way more responsible for obesity than emotional eating. Despite my tendency to the latter I think mindless eating was more of a culprit for me, even.

    I don't get the impression from the average MFP poster who is struggling that being a foodie or enjoyment of a thought-out evening indulgence is the main stumbling block. Seems like more of them feel guilt and shame about food, eating, and almost don't really seem to enjoy food, to struggle with appreciating more than a really narrow range of foods, sometimes.

    So going to "finding pleasure in an evening snack" = "emotional eating" = "the cause of obesity!" strikes me as, well, again, kind of odd.

    I would say a fair part of mindless eating is out of boredom which I would consider an emotion.

    I would disagree. Boredom eating is seeing food as "something to do" and not about addressing difficult feelings or self comfort, IMO.

    Point remains that none of this has anything to do with the comments about desserts.

    The PhDs in Psychology would say boredom is an emotion:
    http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/07-08/dull-moment.aspx

    Excerpt:

    "Even though boredom is very common, there is a lack of knowledge about it," says Wijnand van Tilburg, a psychologist at the University of Southampton. "There hasn't been much research about how it affects people on an everyday basis."
    Now that's changing, as scientists have begun to take a closer look at this underappreciated emotion. The results of their research are anything but dull.
    Boredom is a universal experience, yet until recently researchers didn't have a go-to definition of the condition. Psychologist John Eastwood, PhD, of York University in Toronto, decided that was a good place to start. He and his colleagues scoured the scientific literature for theories of boredom and tried to extract the common elements. Then they interviewed hundreds of people about what it feels like to experience that tedious state.
    They concluded that boredom is best described in terms of attention. A bored person doesn't just have nothing to do. He or she wants to be stimulated, but is unable, for whatever reason, to connect with his or her environment — a state Eastwood describes as an "unengaged mind" (Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2012).
    "In a nutshell, it boiled down to boredom being the unfulfilled desire for satisfying activity," he says.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    I am extremely confused by purposely making food not taste good because "it's fuel". Or maybe the argument is the old parent argument of "poor children in Africa can't enjoy their food so you aren't allowed to either"?

    So am I, who stated that?

    What is your point?

    I will agree that you're not explicitly against food tasting good, but you seem to have an issue with people enjoying it. It would follow, logically, that part of enjoying food is enjoying how it tastes.

    You seem to have very black or white thinking on this issue. Reading between the lines of what you posted, it's almost as if it's not okay in your books for fat people to enjoy food for pleasure because they're fat.

    Why?

    Why can't food be good, and pleasurable and still within the realm of someone's correct energy balance?

    I think your cut-and-dried, rather dull "food is fuel" and your initial point was that maybe fat people should remove emotions from eating as... what? Punishment for being fat? OR is that your solution to the obesity crisis?

    Whatever you're doing, I don't think people who ignore the nuances of humankind's relationship with food have a balanced relationship with it. Food as fuel is just one aspect.

    You might want to do some soul searching.

    There are millions of people with a destructive, dysfunctional relationship with food - I will leave the deep soul searching to them, and not waste a moment of my time dissecting something that I do actually enjoy and is giving me great results. I'm former military and I think that there is a disconnect between my perception of discipline and delayed gratification and the mindset of others.

    You're right. If you use the search function for these forums and search for emotional eating and stress eating (IMO just a subset of emotional eating) you will get 1,000 hits (which is apparently the max) for each of them.

    The emotional ties to food surely are resulting in weight issues.

    For some people.

    Not all.

    This is besides the original point, but you two are too busy back-patting each other to realize that you've strayed from it.

    OR..

    Are you deflecting from the original point BryLander made about the "epidemic" of emotional eating and the need to diminish the prevalence of eating for pleasure?

    So emotional eating isn't an epidemic? So what is your theory on why so many people are overweight, did 68.8% of the people in the US just spontaneously get fat?

    They don't move and eat too many calories

    I'm fairly certain that everyone involved in this discussion already knows that - my question was concerning the psychology behind these behaviors.

    It doesn't take a ton of calories to become overweight. In fact I think it was shown that most people have weight creeping onto them slowly over years without noticing or not caring because it's never a lot at once. It only takes just over 100 calories extra per day to gain a pound per month and a year from now you weigh 12 pounds more.

    For the people who are slowly gaining (the 100 calorie per day surplus people gaining a pound per month), after about a year there are numerous non-scale warning signs that are appearing and should be difficult to ignore. At that point, if they choose to reverse their weight gain at the same rate, they will have to eat 200 less calories per day. Psychologically, this is tough for some people; it is the equivalent of eating about 2 less meals per week, something that most Americans would find traumatic.

    Yep, your pants no longer fitting is a pretty good sign.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories