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
-
curiouskate wrote: »My unpopular opinion: most people who got fat as children/teens will never maintain a healthy weight, and the best we can hope for is yo yo dieting. The other option is accepting being fat for good. The existence of a few exceptions to this rule doesn't change my opinion. Statistically, it's an obvious fact.curiouskate wrote: »Just wanted to say it seems like a lot of people got mad and didn't actually read what I initially said. I said "most people." If that's not you, then it wasn't about you. But I think it might be worth looking at why you feel super definsive reading that little blurb.
The part in bold is what I object to. If only 20% are able to maintain a healthy weight, or even if it's only 10% or 5% or even just 1%... that means that all of us can hope that we will be able to be in that minority. Yo-yo dieting is NOT the best we can hope for.Bry_Lander wrote: »So let me see if I understand it - people come to the unpopular opinion thread to chastise others for having an unpopular opinion. Got it...
Or perhaps to point out to others why that opinion might be unpopular. I'm more surprised by someone posting an opinion in such a thread without expecting a good bit of disagreement. Isn't that kind of what an unpopular idea IS?10 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »So let me see if I understand it - people come to the unpopular opinion thread to chastise others for having an unpopular opinion. Got it...
there are also people who enjoy delivering 'unvarnished truth' because they've basically got a bit of the bully in them. so sometimes it's not just about whether whatever a person says is true; it's also about people intuiting that and developing a mistrust and/or dislike of the speaker based on that sense that they're getting a little bit more out of it than they pretend.
17 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »I'm all for the truth, but I'm also all for compassion and not attacking someone with the facts directly in a way that feels like I'm attacking them personally. I'm not perfect, but I try to pick my words to the best of my ability not to be hurtful. The way I found well-received without overtly sugar coating or attacking someone is to try and make my posts factual and informative rather than accusatory. This puts the person in a position to self-reflect and think about what is being said instead of feeling hurt and immediately putting up defences. Kindness goes a long way, even if it's masquerading as dry facts. Another way I use is to simply share my experience with something without words of judgement directed at anyone.
Precisely. Unvarnished direct criticism may be honest, and it might be fun (for someone(s)), but it's a heckuva poor and low-percentage persuasion strategy.
That's completely leaving out any consideration of whether it's desirable to be, y'know, kind to people.
So you don't like the unpopular opinions that I have posted in the "What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?" forum?
You were neither quoted nor mentioned in my post. I expressed the opinion that criticism is an ineffective means of persuasion. That's it.
8 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »I think WLS is plain wrong. Operating on a healthy stomach and forcing people to starve themselves instead of improving eating habits, attitudes and environment. In the future it's going to be viewed the same way lobotomy is viewed today: Torture, barbaric, cruel.
Daily activity is all over more important than exercise. Incorporating movement into our daily life makes it more natural and easy and more likely to stick. Exhausting oneself to burn calories is futile. Enjoying sports is something completely different.
Snacking is contributing to the obesity epidemic. I am all for reintroducing meals. If IF can do that, I may have to settle for that solution.
This, this and this too for me. Also, what you eat matters - there's good foods and bad foods.
This. There are junk foods.
I don't think you're allowed to say that on MFP. You're allowed to eat cocaine laced with gasoline as long as you measure it to the gram on a food scale and fit the calories into your day.
^^^omg...this is SO true! lmao when I read this3 -
Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.10
-
JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
3 -
To add to that last post, I get frustrated by this discussion, because I really think it's mostly misunderstanding, and to some extent intentional misunderstanding. I wonder why that is -- I get the impression that for some members of the community it makes them feel good to portray the rest of us as if we don't care about nutrition at all -- some weird way to feel superior?
Anyway, that aside (it might be my unpopular opinion)! I think there are a couple ways this misunderstanding happens.
(1) People say "calories are all that matter for weight loss." Some people read that to mean "and for everything else, period," although that's not said and would be a bizarre thing to say, as I don't think anyone believes it.
(2) People say "foods are not individually good or bad" (not my personal battle, but I understand why people feel strongly about this). People read this to mean -- again, weirdly and apparently with an intent to misunderstand -- that they are claiming that no diets can be good or bad or that individual foods are not different in any way or that some foods are not more nutrient dense than others (or contribute nutrients that tend to be less likely to be overrepresented in a diet). None of that was what was said, and it's a weird assumption from the first statement.
A possible misunderstanding from the other side or genuine disagreement: of course, what you eat matters. The question is what does this mean? Does it mean a diet that is nutrient dense, balanced and calorie appropriate but has NO lower nutrient foods is inherently better than one that is very similar but that it fits in some "indulgences"? I'd say no, that difference does not matter, except as to the individual, and on that people differ. Does it mean that it makes a difference if you choose (mostly) spinach vs. kale or broccoli vs. cauliflower or potatoes vs. sweet potatoes or the like (questions that drive me crazy)? No, obviously not. Does it mean that it is crucially important that you be at under 40% carbs rather than 55% or have any particular macro ratio? No. So on. There's a huge variety of good, healthy diets, but that doesn't mean that "what you eat does not matter."
So to suggest that thinking that what you eat matters in some sense is an unpopular opinion strikes me as wrong.
I could be wrong, though, tell me if I am. (Since I do think part of the reason to post unpopular opinions is to get feedback.)15 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
Oh no you din't.
Why did you decide to revisit this little gem? Like it is in the Top Ten of unpopular genpop opinion, but...well, I guess it IS page 116.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
I bloody love you.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.
Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.[/i]
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc3 -
cmriverside wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
Oh no you din't.
Why did you decide to revisit this little gem? Like it is in the Top Ten of unpopular genpop opinion, but...well, I guess it IS page 116.
Because of vegmebuff's post right before mine (at the bottom of page 115) -- did you notice it?1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.
I am well aware of the lack of fruits and veg in the US diet on average. But we don't seem to be suffering from nutritional deficiencies on average, either. And again, I don't think that's a great test of whether a diet is adequate -- whether people are coming down with scurvy or whatever -- but that was asserted on a recent thread about carnivorism, that people didn't have obvious nutritional deficiencies doing it. Well, same for people who just don't watch what they eat at all and eat few fruits or veg. I suspect there are long-run costs to that, but are people dropping dead or developing the diseases of the past based on nutritional deficiency? Generally not. (Similarly, that guy had a year plus potato diet and did okay -- the effects of diet are usually more subtle, at least in the short term.)
Also, historically, I think people may exaggerate the extent to which people ate large amounts of fruits and veg, certainly in certain areas (cities) and parts of the year (winter, early spring). I listened to a podcast (History Extra) with an interview of Mary Gwynn, who wrote a book/did a series on the historical (earlier 20th century) British diet, and she said it wasn't as high in veg and fruits as we like to think (the WW2 years were higher than normal, actually). Other things I've seen/read about historical diets suggest that this view that we were all eating lots of vegetables and fruit until recently is false.
I am not saying it's not important -- I think I'm on record as being one of the biggest vegetable boosters on MFP (although I have lots of company). But we need to be accurate about how that is different or the same as various other times and what the effects are.
I do not think the effects are immediate or apparent nutritional deficiencies or illnesses.
Do people who eat more vegetables tend to have better health results longterm? Yes, although we don't know how much it is a cause (I think it is, enough to prioritize vegetables as one of my main nutritional focuses, although also because vegetables are really tasty and low cal) vs. being correlated with other healthy things.8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.
Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.[/i]
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc
It is true, regardless of their fruit and vegetable intake. The sheer amount of calories many people consume makes sure they're okay on nutrients. Nutrient poor foods are not devoid of nutrients. I did this test a while back where I used cronometer to track one deliberately "junky" day. I was expecting it to look horrible, but it didn't look half as bad as I thought it would.
Menu:
Breakfast: Sandwich
Lunch: instant noodles with canned wieners and chickpeas
Dinner: Mcdonald's cheeseburger and fries
Snacks: peanut butter and jam, milk (many people drink milk), and some fruits (yes, I cheated a little because going without vegetables was bad enough I couldn't also go without fruits and very few people go completely without any nutrient dense foods)
Total calories: 2113
11 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.
Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.[/i]
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc
It is true, regardless of their fruit and vegetable intake. The sheer amount of calories many people consume makes sure they're okay on nutrients. Nutrient poor foods are not devoid of nutrients. I did this test a while back where I used cronometer to track one deliberately "junky" day. I was expecting it to look horrible, but it didn't look half as bad as I thought it would.
Menu:
Breakfast: Sandwich
Lunch: instant noodles with canned wieners and chickpeas
Dinner: Mcdonald's cheeseburger and fries
Snacks: peanut butter and jam, milk (many people drink milk), and some fruits (yes, I cheated a little because going without vegetables was bad enough I couldn't also go without fruits and very few people go completely without any nutrient dense foods)
Total calories: 2113
Where is that screenshot with all your micronutrients from?
0 -
Looks like Cronometer, which is by far the best site for tracking micros, but is only good if you mostly eat foods that can be tracked from sources like USDA (largely whole foods).
I do it off and on just to make sure my normal diet is fine, especially if I change things up or do lower cals for a while. It's more fun to track there, IMO, but a pain if you use lots of brand name things.1 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.
Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.[/i]
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc
It is true, regardless of their fruit and vegetable intake. The sheer amount of calories many people consume makes sure they're okay on nutrients. Nutrient poor foods are not devoid of nutrients. I did this test a while back where I used cronometer to track one deliberately "junky" day. I was expecting it to look horrible, but it didn't look half as bad as I thought it would.
Menu:
Breakfast: Sandwich
Lunch: instant noodles with canned wieners and chickpeas
Dinner: Mcdonald's cheeseburger and fries
Snacks: peanut butter and jam, milk (many people drink milk), and some fruits (yes, I cheated a little because going without vegetables was bad enough I couldn't also go without fruits and very few people go completely without any nutrient dense foods)
Total calories: 2113
Where is that screenshot with all your micronutrients from?
Cronometer. If you eat more packaged foods than you would be bothered to add manually it can be tedious. For chain restaurants and whole foods it's great, except it doesn't have a multi-add like MFP which I use a lot for foods I eat often.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.
Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.[/i]
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc
It is true, regardless of their fruit and vegetable intake. The sheer amount of calories many people consume makes sure they're okay on nutrients. Nutrient poor foods are not devoid of nutrients. I did this test a while back where I used cronometer to track one deliberately "junky" day. I was expecting it to look horrible, but it didn't look half as bad as I thought it would.
Menu:
Breakfast: Sandwich
Lunch: instant noodles with canned wieners and chickpeas
Dinner: Mcdonald's cheeseburger and fries
Snacks: peanut butter and jam, milk (many people drink milk), and some fruits (yes, I cheated a little because going without vegetables was bad enough I couldn't also go without fruits and very few people go completely without any nutrient dense foods)
Total calories: 2113
Where is that screenshot with all your micronutrients from?
Cronometer. If you eat more packaged foods than you would be bothered to add manually it can be tedious. For chain restaurants and whole foods it's great, except it doesn't have a multi-add like MFP which I use a lot for foods I eat often.
Yeah, cronometer is awesome for giving very detailed breakdowns, but it's also very tedious to use for any length of time.0 -
I think there's a difference between "clinical" or "overt" deficiency and "suboptimal" intakes of some nutrients. There are some nutrients that most people may not be truly deficient in, but that doesn't mean that they are taking in enough for their bodies to run optimally.amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.
Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.[/i]
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc
It is true, regardless of their fruit and vegetable intake. The sheer amount of calories many people consume makes sure they're okay on nutrients. Nutrient poor foods are not devoid of nutrients. I did this test a while back where I used cronometer to track one deliberately "junky" day. I was expecting it to look horrible, but it didn't look half as bad as I thought it would.
Menu:
Breakfast: Sandwich
Lunch: instant noodles with canned wieners and chickpeas
Dinner: Mcdonald's cheeseburger and fries
Snacks: peanut butter and jam, milk (many people drink milk), and some fruits (yes, I cheated a little because going without vegetables was bad enough I couldn't also go without fruits and very few people go completely without any nutrient dense foods)
Total calories: 2113
7 -
Thanks!0
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
- 232.3K 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