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?

1189190192194195358

Replies

  • jessiferrrb
    jessiferrrb Posts: 1,758 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    SezxyStef 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.

    As I said earlier (and if you care you can go back in history to check my prior postings) I believe in the 80/20 nutritionally dense vs not so nutritionally dense.

    My point, MY PERCEPTION, is discussions related to foods on these boards seem to be the other way around. 80% how to fit more treats into a nutrition plan, vs comparatively little discussion on including an appropriate amount of nutritionally dense foods in one's diet.

    I mean, we all know virtually nobody gets the recommended amounts of fruits and veggies. To me, on a health and fitness site, this would be a higher priority.

    Well, how would you know this really? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't. What is that to you? Personally, I do me and other do them. I'm not looking to control or or be the diet judge of what others are eating.

    FTR, I don't agree with your perception about what is discussed 80% of the time. Or maybe I do a little but I'm not out to save the world. I'm running my own race. I see dopey posts every day about stuff. They're everywhere. It's not my job to be the correctness police and fix people. Is it yours?

    Also, I see lots and lots of discussion of of what is an appropriate amount of nutrient dense foods. I'd suggest if you don't, you are either not paying close enough attention or need to have more discretion about which threads you wander into.

    FTR 2: I get more than the recommended amount of fruits and veggies pretty much every day. I am not the only one. So that pretty much invalidates your "virtually nobody" statement. Either way, what business is it of yours?

    Suggestion. You may want to consider dialing back the judgmental thing in regard to other people and focus on being a better you. Just sayin...

    There's actually quite a few of us here who eat larger amounts of veg/fruit-more than the current recommendations. And then there's also quite a few here who are working on upping their produce consumption-it's a pretty popular thread topic. A bit surprised at pp's statement, since it's so obviously not accurate, if one spends any amount of time on the forums.

    And then there are those of us who get way more than the recommended amount of vegetables, but not much fruit because of medical conditions where carbs need to be modified. Together, I get over the recommendations, but if you separate fruit from veggies it is (necessarily) unbalanced.

    And those of us who get way more than the recommended amount of vegetables and absolutely no fruit, because fruit is the devil's poo, and that's fine because there's nothing in fruit which you can't get from veg and the only reason they recommend 5/2 is because it's more palatable to people to recommend some fruit instead of all veg.

    giphy.gif
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 32,629 Member
    lol, csardiver..."13%."

    Source!!!!
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 32,629 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lol, csardiver..."13%."

    Source!!!!

    I believe the updated statistical distribution has lowered a point or two, but the final results are not in. I went with the 'middle' income.

    http://www.pewglobal.org/interactives/global-population-by-income/

    so funny. I was kidding. I guess I should know better. :lol:
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,270 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lol, csardiver..."13%."

    Source!!!!

    I believe the updated statistical distribution has lowered a point or two, but the final results are not in. I went with the 'middle' income.

    http://www.pewglobal.org/interactives/global-population-by-income/

    wow you had that at your finger tips...imagine saying something and being able to prove it...immediately...impressive.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 32,629 Member
    Well all it proves is that 13% of the world is middle income. It doesn't prove the GMO/ability to decide argument.

    "A luxury of affluence" doesn't necessarily follow.

    "Upper 13%" would be something different.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,177 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    SezxyStef 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.

    Exactly. These people who are mfp "vets" really seem to attack those who put down processed foods. Over and over again.

    This is why I stand by my first unpopular opinion pages ago...this is NOT a health and fitness site. It's a weight loss site.

    do I dare ask for a link or two showing this????

    where vets "attack"...those who put down processed foods.

    I am with Lemurcat on this one...for me processed foods are part of my regular WoE (way of eating) and I eat "convenience" foods too like lean cuisine when I on a crunch for time...or a healthy choice steamer...I assume those are "processed" but I get in 2-4 servings of veggies and protein from those, calories are decent and it helps me hit my macros.

    my yogurt, my breakfast this morning (1 egg, cheese, english muffin, 4 slices of deli ham, coffee, creamer (AMG and it was coffee mate)) all processed foods (except the egg i guess) but healthy, nutrient dense.

    How about this comment you made to on page 125?

    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.

    sexystef's response
    don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions

    To me @shinedowness1 did not indicate any total restriction of those items, just eating at a reasonable level for health. Reductions in the amount of process foods, sugar and fat, as you know, are recommendations from dietitians for most people in the developed world. Yet, she gets a snarky comment/attack.

    The above response led to my unpopular opinion

    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.

    again I will ask for a link to where a vet attacks...

    I did not attack...it was a very matter of fact statement...I didn't even use an exclamation point...

    and no where did the OP say they limit processed foods they said they try not to have GMO and processed but limit sugar and fat...

    trying not to eat it means eliminating it where possible...and if that is the case I stand by my statement...if you are not eating GMO (never mind processed) you are limiting your foods esp in North America where 80% of our food has is GMO or has an ingredient that is GMO

    Unless you redefine GMO to the point where it's meaningless.

    Which is what most people who "limit/avoid" GMO do.

    Not to mention that poster says they start their morning with "women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas" and then follows up by saying they "try to have foods that are not genetically modified". The concept of not eating genetically modified foods, yet relying on bananas ad a dietary staple is quite ironic...

    Bananas, corn, oranges, sweet peas, beef. All genetically engineered to one degree or another..

    But are we talking about genetically modified, or are we talking about hybridization?

    Hybrid foods are not genetically modified in the sense that their genetic structure has NOT been changed in a lab on the cellular level. Yes, they ARE selectively bred and the gene pools of different strains are mixed to produce "better" strains. It is still a natural process similar to natural selection, just sped up by humans.

    Human interference on the cellular level is what scares people. Hybridization has been happening naturally or with human intervention for millennia.

    Very little of our individual foods are GMO. There are genetically modified versions of tomatoes, potatoes, wheat and rice, but none are sold in the United States.

    BUT, in the United States today a huge proportion of the most commonly grown commodity crops are genetically modified: 95% of the nation's sugar beets, 94% of the soybeans, and 88% of the corn. This means that a large portion of processed foods will contain GMO ingredients because of the prevalence of beet sugar (45% of sugar used in the US is from beets), HFCS, and soy products.

    Does it matter if the gene is modified via natural means or otherwise? Nature modifies DNA strands constantly. It is a critical aspect to adaptation and survival.

    If people are scared of GMO, then people are ignorant of science. It's a luxury of affluence.

    If you even have the ability to decide (or believe you do) to go non-GMO, well congrats....you're in the upper 13% of the world's population.

    To some people it matters a lot because inserting a gene from a totally unrelated species in a lab is not the same as cross pollinating between similar species or grafting a bud from one type of apple tree onto a different one.

    For the record, I don't care if something is GMO or not.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,257 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    SezxyStef 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.

    Exactly. These people who are mfp "vets" really seem to attack those who put down processed foods. Over and over again.

    This is why I stand by my first unpopular opinion pages ago...this is NOT a health and fitness site. It's a weight loss site.

    do I dare ask for a link or two showing this????

    where vets "attack"...those who put down processed foods.

    I am with Lemurcat on this one...for me processed foods are part of my regular WoE (way of eating) and I eat "convenience" foods too like lean cuisine when I on a crunch for time...or a healthy choice steamer...I assume those are "processed" but I get in 2-4 servings of veggies and protein from those, calories are decent and it helps me hit my macros.

    my yogurt, my breakfast this morning (1 egg, cheese, english muffin, 4 slices of deli ham, coffee, creamer (AMG and it was coffee mate)) all processed foods (except the egg i guess) but healthy, nutrient dense.

    How about this comment you made to on page 125?

    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.

    sexystef's response
    don't have a varied diet do you then if that is one of the conditions

    To me @shinedowness1 did not indicate any total restriction of those items, just eating at a reasonable level for health. Reductions in the amount of process foods, sugar and fat, as you know, are recommendations from dietitians for most people in the developed world. Yet, she gets a snarky comment/attack.

    The above response led to my unpopular opinion

    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.

    again I will ask for a link to where a vet attacks...

    I did not attack...it was a very matter of fact statement...I didn't even use an exclamation point...

    and no where did the OP say they limit processed foods they said they try not to have GMO and processed but limit sugar and fat...

    trying not to eat it means eliminating it where possible...and if that is the case I stand by my statement...if you are not eating GMO (never mind processed) you are limiting your foods esp in North America where 80% of our food has is GMO or has an ingredient that is GMO

    Unless you redefine GMO to the point where it's meaningless.

    Which is what most people who "limit/avoid" GMO do.

    Not to mention that poster says they start their morning with "women's multivitamin pills, oatmeal, protein, and bananas" and then follows up by saying they "try to have foods that are not genetically modified". The concept of not eating genetically modified foods, yet relying on bananas ad a dietary staple is quite ironic...

    Bananas, corn, oranges, sweet peas, beef. All genetically engineered to one degree or another..

    But are we talking about genetically modified, or are we talking about hybridization?

    Hybrid foods are not genetically modified in the sense that their genetic structure has NOT been changed in a lab on the cellular level. Yes, they ARE selectively bred and the gene pools of different strains are mixed to produce "better" strains. It is still a natural process similar to natural selection, just sped up by humans.

    Human interference on the cellular level is what scares people. Hybridization has been happening naturally or with human intervention for millennia.

    Very little of our individual foods are GMO. There are genetically modified versions of tomatoes, potatoes, wheat and rice, but none are sold in the United States.

    BUT, in the United States today a huge proportion of the most commonly grown commodity crops are genetically modified: 95% of the nation's sugar beets, 94% of the soybeans, and 88% of the corn. This means that a large portion of processed foods will contain GMO ingredients because of the prevalence of beet sugar (45% of sugar used in the US is from beets), HFCS, and soy products.

    Does it matter if the gene is modified via natural means or otherwise? Nature modifies DNA strands constantly. It is a critical aspect to adaptation and survival.

    If people are scared of GMO, then people are ignorant of science. It's a luxury of affluence.

    If you even have the ability to decide (or believe you do) to go non-GMO, well congrats....you're in the upper 13% of the world's population.

    To some people it matters a lot because inserting a gene from a totally unrelated species in a lab is not the same as cross pollinating between similar species or grafting a bud from one type of apple tree onto a different one.

    For the record, I don't care if something is GMO or not.

    ...but this occurs in nature constantly. DNA sequences are continually shifting trans-species. While this activity is controlled in a lab setting, it is completely random in nature. ...and we've known about this phenomenon for over 30 years now.

    Not talking personally - this is simply exposing the ignorance of the public when it comes to science.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,331 Member
    @GottaBurnEmAll have you tried roasted buckwheat groats? They're comparable to quinoa in nutrition and are very forgiving when cooked. If you overcook them they won't stick together like rice or "lose their nails" like quinoa. They have a light fluffy texture and a nutty flavor and can be eating hot or cold.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,601 Member
    @GottaBurnEmAll have you tried roasted buckwheat groats? They're comparable to quinoa in nutrition and are very forgiving when cooked. If you overcook them they won't stick together like rice or "lose their nails" like quinoa. They have a light fluffy texture and a nutty flavor and can be eating hot or cold.

    I might have to try this - I've been gorging myself on Farro recently, but want to add some more grains to the rotation
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,331 Member
    @GottaBurnEmAll have you tried roasted buckwheat groats? They're comparable to quinoa in nutrition and are very forgiving when cooked. If you overcook them they won't stick together like rice or "lose their nails" like quinoa. They have a light fluffy texture and a nutty flavor and can be eating hot or cold.

    I might have to try this - I've been gorging myself on Farro recently, but want to add some more grains to the rotation

    A cup (about 170 g) cooked is about 160 calories if I recall correctly. One of the lower calorie grains compared to, say, millet. Some consider it an acquired taste, but I grew up with it, so there is that.
  • mathjulz
    mathjulz Posts: 5,526 Member
    @GottaBurnEmAll have you tried roasted buckwheat groats? They're comparable to quinoa in nutrition and are very forgiving when cooked. If you overcook them they won't stick together like rice or "lose their nails" like quinoa. They have a light fluffy texture and a nutty flavor and can be eating hot or cold.

    I thought buckwheat had gluten. But I may be wrong.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,331 Member
    mathjulz wrote: »
    @GottaBurnEmAll have you tried roasted buckwheat groats? They're comparable to quinoa in nutrition and are very forgiving when cooked. If you overcook them they won't stick together like rice or "lose their nails" like quinoa. They have a light fluffy texture and a nutty flavor and can be eating hot or cold.

    I thought buckwheat had gluten. But I may be wrong.

    No, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. It's not a true grain, more like a seed.
This discussion has been closed.