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
-
It's just going to be a challenge to do that and also have a varied diet.[/quote]
It certainly dramatically limits your fruit and veg choices. [/quote]
The confusion as always lies in what that particular person's definition of "processed" foods are. Almost everything is processed in some way, and if that is what they mean then that seems like a waste of a lot of good food to me. Too often people say processed and want to equate it to what is often commonly labeled as "junk" foods such as cheetos and soda. That is how I interpreted the original poster's comment based on the context of the rest of the post but I may be mistaken. I want to clearly state for the record though I love all foods and don't label anything as junk. I will find a way to fit that delicious food into my diet in moderation and every single calorie will be worth it. I personally don't understand why someone would cut out delicious food, but I guess people need to do what works best for themselves.1 -
canadianlbs wrote: »middlehaitch wrote: »I think the pushback is because of all the 'toned in 10' articles in magazines.
i agree about that. some of my irritation probably comes from me having that frustrating sense that i'm watching people argue with the wrong lamppost.please show me a post where people have "gleefully" jumped down someone's throat for using the word "tone"
tell ya what. i don't happen to have a useful list of them in my back pocket right now, but the next time i see an example of it i'll tag you.Tone as used in the fitness industry is a catch phrase that really has no real meaning except for what they want it to...
kind of 'exactly', actually. it has meaning to any individual person who uses it here. so what i find rude is, when someone seems so anxious to put that person in their place, they're not even interested in trying out to find what the word means to them.and it's overused "tone up in 10 days", "get toned with these simple exercises"...etc.
sure. but again i think people are arguing with the poor messenger and imo it sucks. because they're really having a personal argument that's all their own with some industry or some magazine, but they're going through a real live human to score their know-it-all points.
when i first tried to learn how to lift i didn't know the right words for anything, and if i weren't so stubborn i would have been discouraged from it for good by the knee-jerk putdowns and snubs i got while i was trying to work out how to say what i meant.and if that word actually meant what they want it to....then the magazines would be full of crap and selling something akin to plastic wrap making you lose weight...just doesn't work that way.
who says though that anyone who comes to the fitness and exercise section saying they want to 'tone', they're looking for that kind of b.s. and a quick fix? who says you know what someone else 'wants' it to mean?
I didn't say they were looking for a quick fix ...I said the magazine would be selling one if that word meant what they thought it did...
aka tighten up the muscle...
and it's not about what they "want" it to mean it's about what the fitness industry is selling as the meaning....
As well I am not arguing anything..I asked for examples of people jumping down throats...you don't have any...and I fully don't expect to see any...mainly because a lot of time people claim "nastiness" based on "tone" of writing or assumed toned when in fact the post is matter of fact with no Woo in it...and that is seen as "jumping"
anyway tag me all you want in the Mean posts...I would be interested to see them, report them and have the person being nasty taken to task.
Three thoughts, at least one of which is an opinion (possibly unpopular):- Most of us don't compile a running cross-indexed database of tone in threads, and one can't readily use search tools to find them. Expecting someone to produce one on demand is unrealistic. It's not equivalent to failing to produce cites to support a scientific "fact". Several people have agreed with the opinion in question here, most of them not "frail sensitive flower" types.
- IMO, snarky tone is not necessarily a reportable offence under MFP TOS, even if uncalled for or socially inappropriate. We're adults, not 3rd-graders, so we can do some self-policing rather than dragging in busy mods.
- Tone in writing is a thing, and effective communicators strive to manage it. If one is called out as snarky, dismissive, judgemental, etc., by multiple people on a thread, that person would do better to give some thought to whether they're communicating effectively, rather than hiding behind variations of "didn't mean it that way - you're reading it wrong".
and where did I say that they failed as posters because they couldn't produce an example?
I expected it was a recent thing and they had it bookmarked but it wasn't so I agreed that a tag would be nice then I could see what they meant.
I don't think the poster said "snarky" I believe they said "gleefully jumped down throats" which is against ToS as it is an attack/bait/hijack etc.
Yes I get what tone is and how it impacts the written word but I also know in forum writing often times people jump on a band wagon due to previous interactions with posters or "white knighting" or because they are having a day and want to call someone mean. In other words people often have a bias towards either the topic or the poster they are accusing of being "mean" when in fact said person is not being mean and the tone being read is not the tone of the writer.
Most of the time when I post it's with a matter of fact tone in my mind...if someone else reads something other than that...it really is on them. If there are a few look at previous interactions I have had with that person and chances are you will see their bias coming through.
I couldn't agree more: Those of us who regularly post/reply here do begin to build up a persona in others' minds. From our statements and our intended or perceived tone, they draw conclusions about whether we're judgemental or fair, have good reading comprehension and reasoning skills or not, have biases vs. being open-minded, intend to help others or simply want to score some points, and more.
Those impressions follow us, and color how we're perceived on other occasions . . . just like in almost any other social group. Those impressions can be hard to change . . . well, except via a new screen name, and even that often gets unmasked.
It's important to stay mindful of that. Good reminder!
Edited: omitted words, typos9 -
shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
Something can be varied and still exclude certain things. Varied does not necessarily mean all inclusive, it just means that it incorporates a number of different types or elements. I'm fairly certain your diet probably has conditions as well, or would you literally eat anything?
I actually mean the GMO/Processed as most of the food we consume has a GMO ingredient in it or is processed in some way...
This would depend on who "we" is. My diet contains very few GMO as I grow a lot of my own and buy plants/seeds from growers who provide non-GMO. Any I don't believe for one second that anyone really thinks people mean whole foods that have been "processed" by harvesting, shipping, packaging. That's just nonsense for arguments sake.9 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
Something can be varied and still exclude certain things. Varied does not necessarily mean all inclusive, it just means that it incorporates a number of different types or elements. I'm fairly certain your diet probably has conditions as well, or would you literally eat anything?
I actually mean the GMO/Processed as most of the food we consume has a GMO ingredient in it or is processed in some way...
This would depend on who "we" is. My diet contains very few GMO as I grow a lot of my own and buy plants/seeds from growers who provide non-GMO. Any I don't believe for one second that anyone really thinks people mean whole foods that have been "processed" by harvesting, shipping, packaging. That's just nonsense for arguments sake.
YOu are a rare person who grows their own food and with specifically Non GMO seeds in hand.
I have a garden and I expect my seeds come from GMO'd plants.
and no Processed is not shipping etc...that's just being pedantic for the sake of it.
I mean for example...processed being store bought bread, rice (regardless of color), canned anything even if it's packed in water. Any changes to it's natural state is "processing"...processed in some cases means "boxed" or "frozen" with extra preservatives but in today's world even fruit is sprayed with some form of preservative..but I won't use that as Processed.
3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
Something can be varied and still exclude certain things. Varied does not necessarily mean all inclusive, it just means that it incorporates a number of different types or elements. I'm fairly certain your diet probably has conditions as well, or would you literally eat anything?
I actually mean the GMO/Processed as most of the food we consume has a GMO ingredient in it or is processed in some way...
This would depend on who "we" is. My diet contains very few GMO as I grow a lot of my own and buy plants/seeds from growers who provide non-GMO. Any I don't believe for one second that anyone really thinks people mean whole foods that have been "processed" by harvesting, shipping, packaging. That's just nonsense for arguments sake.
I have seen where it was argued that cutting vegetables and grinding beef was "processing" them - obviously that person wasn't interested in engaging in a rational discussion about processed food. I guess it is the same mindset that inspires the "of course my food is clean, I always wash it" dad jokery...7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
I don't think it's "static" to point out that someone who is looking to eliminate processed foods, foods with GMOs, and foods that are higher in fat and sugar isn't (in most places in the world) going to be eating a varied diet. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a poor diet (you can eat well on a limited number of foods as long as you're meeting your nutritional needs) or that people aren't free to choose it.
It's just going to be a challenge to do that and also have a varied diet.
The comment was limit, not eliminate.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
I don't think it's "static" to point out that someone who is looking to eliminate processed foods, foods with GMOs, and foods that are higher in fat and sugar isn't (in most places in the world) going to be eating a varied diet. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a poor diet (you can eat well on a limited number of foods as long as you're meeting your nutritional needs) or that people aren't free to choose it.
It's just going to be a challenge to do that and also have a varied diet.
The comment was limit, not eliminate.
When someone writes they try not to have something, I usually think of that as an intention to at least significantly limit it. This is going to impact the variety in the diet, even if they are occasionally having foods that have undergone processing or that are high in sugar or fat.
I guess we can speculate as to what exactly what the "so much" means in this context. I take that as a statement one intends to eat those things rarely or not at all.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.22 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
I see what you're getting at and agree - it is strange to see on a fitness site. It's also strangely wonderful. The key element lacking in the majority of weight management programs in long term discipline. MFP/IIFYM differ in that the stress in not upon specific foods, but portion size to accommodate personal dietary budgets.
I suspect the rationale behind the booing is that this mindset to cut sugar/fat is not sustainable long term and to get beyond the notion that there is such a thing as good/bad foods. Note that this is concerning the majority population with a higher bodyfat percentage.8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
I see what you're getting at and agree - it is strange to see on a fitness site. It's also strangely wonderful. The key element lacking in the majority of weight management programs in long term discipline. MFP/IIFYM differ in that the stress in not upon specific foods, but portion size to accommodate personal dietary budgets.
I suspect the rationale behind the booing is that this mindset to cut sugar/fat is not sustainable long term and to get beyond the notion that there is such a thing as good/bad foods. Note that this is concerning the majority population with a higher bodyfat percentage.
Exactly, many respected fitness/nutrition experts have written on the importance of compliance and the downside of over restriction. Steve Troutman writes about it regularly.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy11 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
I see what you're getting at and agree - it is strange to see on a fitness site. It's also strangely wonderful. The key element lacking in the majority of weight management programs in long term discipline. MFP/IIFYM differ in that the stress in not upon specific foods, but portion size to accommodate personal dietary budgets.
I suspect the rationale behind the booing is that this mindset to cut sugar/fat is not sustainable long term and to get beyond the notion that there is such a thing as good/bad foods. Note that this is concerning the majority population with a higher bodyfat percentage.
Exactly, many respected fitness/nutrition experts have written on the importance of compliance and the downside of over restriction. Steve Troutman writes about it regularly.
From my personal experience, I know, after 40 years of dieting experience, that the mindset of all-out restriction isn't in any way a sustainable compliance strategy.
I came into this weight loss venture this time with every intention of learning everything I could so this would be a life long successful endeavor, and learning from my past mistakes as well as taking on board new information has been part of my evolving strategy moving forward.
Applauding the inclusion of pizza and cookies in someone's diet doesn't mean endorsing a diet that's full of nothing but pizza and cookies. Quite the opposite, actually.
I think most of us who boo the idea of restriction know that it's not sustainable in the long run because it always ends up backfiring.
I remember one poster on here who famously swore up down right and left that she never ate sugar. Except when she did. And then said that since she almost never ate it that she just said she never ate it. Well okay. She somewhat restricted her intake but allowed herself to indulge on special occasions. That's a balance that's sustainable, and that's something that I could get behind in restriction threads.
I see a poster on here who's an advocate of keto who talks about having had cheats of desserts here and there of birthday cake or ice cream. Okay... most of the time, you're restrictive, but make exceptions to have indulgences but hardly ever talk about it.
I don't get these games. You're really no different than I am. I talk moderation and maybe treat myself to a candy bar once a month or two. Eh, I have Hershey's syrup on my protein ice cream if I'm eating it. That's my sugar intake.
But I have a different outlook on the whole restriction thing because I feel differently about how I look at food.
I like to convey that to posters looking to restrict their own intake, not to discourage them, but to encourage them not to play games with themselves.
Food is food. It's okay to find sustainable balance instead of having an all or nothing mentality.20 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Someone who is fitting in some wine or ice cream and also hitting their macro and calorie goals is already going to be consuming a reasonable amount of sugar or fat though. It's not an either/or type of thing.
I think many of us come from a background where we're convinced that we have to completely eliminate certain foods from our lives in order to lose weight. So when we "cheer" people for realizing that they can sometimes have ice cream or wine as part of achieving/maintaining a healthy weight, we're really cheering on the fact that someone has managed to overcome that limiting attitude.
If someone doesn't want ice cream or wine, there is no reason they should have to consume them. But for me, it was incredibly freeing to realize that any food could fit into my life and when other people have the same realization, I am happy for them too.17 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
To the extent that this "praise for treats" phenomenon is happening, part of the reason may be that some (lots?) of us enjoy treats, yet have to put energy, thought, and work into getting a good balance of nutrition within our calorie goals.
When we make that calorie/nutrition thing work right, and still have room for treats, it feels like leveling up in a challenging game. So when we see others do it, we're like "yay, you! you won treats!!!".
But watching other people restrict stuff just doesn't have that same kick. It's more like seeing other people succeed in making their bed and brushing their teeth every single day, or something. It's good, but kinda boring. 16 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
To the extent that this "praise for treats" phenomenon is happening, part of the reason may be that some (lots?) of us enjoy treats, yet have to put energy, thought, and work into getting a good balance of nutrition within our calorie goals.
When we make that calorie/nutrition thing work right, and still have room for treats, it feels like leveling up in a challenging game. So when we see others do it, we're like "yay, you! you won treats!!!".
But watching other people restrict stuff just doesn't have that same kick. It's more like seeing other people succeed in making their bed and brushing their teeth every single day, or something. It's good, but kinda boring.
Yes, perfectly put!
3 -
shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning.
What kind of protein?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
I find it annoying that people who eat as many or more processed foods as me, and often a less vegetable focused diet claim some kind of extra clean diet based on an assertion that they never eat processed foods when of course they do.
I also find the idea that if you don't agree that processed foods are inherently bad (I find plain greek yogurt and smoked salmon and tempeh helpful in meeting my protein needs), that you have a poor diet and eat lots of Cheetos and sugary sodas (neither of which are foods I ever consume, and I didn't consume them when I was overweight either).
And I think your post is a strawman, as I think most of us here agree that diets can be better or worse and that what you eat matters for nutrition (as I am pretty sure I posted about just a few pages back).
I note that you just ignored that, since I guess it's easier to pretend like the rest of us don't care about nutrition.16 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
I find it annoying that people who eat as many or more processed foods as me, and often a less vegetable focused diet claim some kind of extra clean diet based on an assertion that they never eat processed foods when of course they do.
I also find the idea that if you don't agree that processed foods are inherently bad (I find plain greek yogurt and smoked salmon and tempeh helpful in meeting my protein needs), that you have a poor diet and eat lots of Cheetos and sugary sodas (neither of which are foods I ever consume, and I didn't consume them when I was overweight either).
And I think your post is a strawman, as I think most of us here agree that diets can be better or worse and that what you eat matters for nutrition (as I am pretty sure I posted about just a few pages back).
I note that you just ignored that, since I guess it's easier to pretend like the rest of us don't care about nutrition.
Nope, it's just my unpopular opinion.8 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »shinedowness1 wrote: »What I do is basically have women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas in the morning. That usually stops me from eating things that cause me to overindulge throughout the day. My snacks, lunches, and dinners consist of a mixture of foods. That way I am not eating repetitively so much. Foods high in vitamins, minerals, and protein are what I scavenge for. I try to have foods that are not genetically modified, processed so much, and doesn't have too much sugar, fat, etc. to insure my body.
don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions...
You don't have to have Cheeto's, pop, etc to have a varied diet.
Someone who avoids processed food is going to be eliminating a lot more than Cheetos and soda, especially if they are also eliminating foods that are higher in sugar and fat as well.
This represents one of my unpopular opinions. Someone who mentioned they are trying to limit processed foods, extra sugar, fat etc from their diet gets a lot of static on their choices on this forum. Yet someone who eats a bunch of questionable foods (i.e. junk foods) drinks alcohol on a daily basis etc, as long as it "fits their macros" and calories gets virtual high fives.
Seems strange for a health and fitness site.
Doesn't seem strange to one who suspends the judgey, judgey stuff and understands what IIFYM really is. It's all about context and dose. About sustainability and taking perfectionism and deprivation out of the equation for long term success.
If someone ate a bunch of junk food and alcohol, to use the example you put forward, they wouldn't hit the FYM part of IIFYM. Most of us IIFYM folks use the 80/20 rule, whole foods/ whatever. People who criticize it always want to focus on the 20 and exclude the middle. Once you hit your macros and had a balanced diet with diverse micro-nutrients, you don't get any extra credit.
Dose and context and sustainability, man. Dose and context and sustainability.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html/
I have a very good understanding of IIFYM and the 80/20 idea. Thank you. My point is when someone says they are planning on reducing sugar and fat in their diet there are boos in the responses. Someone mentions they were able to include wine or ice cream every day there are high fives.
Apples and oranges. One doesn't relate to the other.
ETA: whether, sugar or fat should be reduced is specific to the individual. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it. If I were to "high five" someone for including some wine and or ice cream, it would be because they both hit thier targets and enjoyed life through food and drink a little. That person is more likely to comply long term and achieve thier goal. I don't get the value judgement you put on either of these. Eliminating fat and sugar isn't necessarily good. Having wine and ice cream isn't necessarily bad. Again, context and dose.
I agree with what you are saying 100%. However, MY PERCEPTION (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is there is much more praise in the responses on these forums when someone gets some wine or ice cream (as examples of higher calorie, lower nutrient foods) in vs when someone mentions a reasonable reduction in sugar or fat.
In my mind, both should be equally praiseworthy
Ok so?
Does that not meet some unspoken standard that you value. I think it's for the reasons @AnnPT77 and @janejellyroll and @GottaBurnEmall have detailed. Seems that many of those here get that but the logic escapes you. I get that it can be hard to read tone. But to me, it comes off very judgmental. As though you feel you can be the arbiter of others values in terms of diet and fitness. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and if so, my apologies.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions