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
-
janejellyroll 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.
Possibly not.
I am told quite often how limited my gluten free ketogenic diet is. It isn't. I eat beef, lamb, seafood, fish, pork, chicken, turkey, bison, eggs, dairy, berries, coconut, olives, nuts (macadamia, cashew, etc), seeds (flax, ciha, hemp, pumpkin, etc), peanuts, and veggies (greens, peppers, onions, mushrooms, celery, broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, snap peas, etc). It does not feel limited. If avoid grains and sugar I consider it a plus - nutritionally speaking, neither are great.
If one does not have a gluten issue, there is nothing nutritionally bad about grains. Quite the opposite, many whole grains are very nutritionally dense while providing a good source of fiber. Barley and brown rice (which is gluten free) are 2 good examples.
Beyond fibre, grains are not a great source of nutrition. Mediocre to poor for many grains, especially once they are processed into flours. That's why wheat flour is "enriched". Other flours usually aren't even enriched.
Nutritionally speaking (vitamins and minerals), veggies and animal products are superior to grains. IMO
I looked up a random grain that I eat frequently, oats, and I can see that it has calcium, a lot of iron, B-6, and a lot of magnesium. It's a good source of protein and fiber as well.
Would I live on just oats? No. Is it the most nutrient dense food in my pantry? Probably not. But I wouldn't call it mediocre to poor. This just doesn't make sense to me.
If I had to build a very limited diet to meet my nutritional needs, oats would be a better choice than many vegetables that I eat frequently.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/baby-foods/349/2
Barley, 100 grams, Glycemic Load-44, Protein-11.1 grams, More than the RDA in Niacin, Riboflavin, Thiamin, Iron, contributor of other micro nutrients.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/10355/2
Spelt, 1 cup, Glycemic Load-64, Protein- 25.4 grams, More than double the RDA for Manganese, Contributes to Phosphorus, Magnesium, Thiamin.
Just to add a couple to your oats. I could keep going. The poster who claimed grains are not a great source of nutrition may actually want to actually, you know, look up some nutritional data before making unsubstantiated claims. Just sayin'....
(and this doesn't count pseudo grains like Quinoa and Millet that are more seeds)7 -
GemstoneofHeart 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.
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.
Its a calorie counting site. Everything else is extra.11 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Unpopular opinions? How's this?
Obese women who call themselves "average" body type on POF and have only headshots for photos. Experience tells me that their true body type is going to be "A few extra pounds". (it's worse yet if someone claims to be "athletic" but carries 30% body fat or more)
Sadly, "average" is technically almost correct now that obesity is an epidemic.
No photos where your torso is visible in a POF profile is now an automatic assumption you carry excessive fat!
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate overweight people, but I really do dislike dishonesty... especially when you know for sure that your lie will be evident on first meeting!
Not sure what this has to do with health and fitness...but dude, it's POF.15 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Unpopular opinions? How's this?
Obese women who call themselves "average" body type on POF and have only headshots for photos. Experience tells me that their true body type is going to be "A few extra pounds". (it's worse yet if someone claims to be "athletic" but carries 30% body fat or more)
Sadly, "average" is technically almost correct now that obesity is an epidemic.
No photos where your torso is visible in a POF profile is now an automatic assumption you carry excessive fat!
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate overweight people, but I really do dislike dishonesty... especially when you know for sure that your lie will be evident on first meeting!
Not sure what this has to do with health and fitness...but dude, it's POF.
it's the fact that they can put average and it's true...
3 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »apparently another unpopular opinion I have is not logging things like "cleaning" or "gardening" but only purposeful exercise done with intent on improving health and fitness....
Not to cross threads but the thread wasn't about normal level of house hold chores.
Stated as you have above I would agree with you.
Agreed and I should have clarified more with "extra cleaning" but for me Gardening did that since it's not a constant everyday affair.
but regardless I don't think cleaning, throwing in wood or anything not done to improve health and fitness should be logged for extra calories...
As a general rule, I agree with you. Daily household chores do not get counted. The once-in-a-while deep cleaning gets accounted for in my steps anyway. The only thing I have logged was a few weeks ago when I set up my brand new perennial garden. 3 hours of spading, tilling, composting, planting and mulching took a lot of effort. You bet I was going to take credit for it (although I only claimed one hour of the three).
I have a neighbor who gave me a half face cord of chopped wood. If I was to chop my own, yes that would get logged. I have no problem if people log household work that is very infrequent, takes a lot of effort, and burns more than the usual calories. Otherwise, no.8 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »apparently another unpopular opinion I have is not logging things like "cleaning" or "gardening" but only purposeful exercise done with intent on improving health and fitness....
Not to cross threads but the thread wasn't about normal level of house hold chores.
Stated as you have above I would agree with you.
Agreed and I should have clarified more with "extra cleaning" but for me Gardening did that since it's not a constant everyday affair.
but regardless I don't think cleaning, throwing in wood or anything not done to improve health and fitness should be logged for extra calories...
As a general rule, I agree with you. Daily household chores do not get counted. The once-in-a-while deep cleaning gets accounted for in my steps anyway. The only thing I have logged was a few weeks ago when I set up my brand new perennial garden. 3 hours of spading, tilling, composting, planting and mulching took a lot of effort. You bet I was going to take credit for it (although I only claimed one hour of the three).
I have a neighbor who gave me a half face cord of chopped wood. If I was to chop my own, yes that would get logged. I have no problem if people log household work that is very infrequent, takes a lot of effort, and burns more than the usual calories. Otherwise, no.
hence my assumption my stance is unpopular.
I have this stance for a reason too...
When I was fat and getting fatter I did all this stuff too. Throw in wood, did the gardens, created new ones by hand...all that stuff...I stayed fat. It didn't help me lose weight.
Even after I lost the weight and was in maintenance last summer I thought lets see how it will impact my days shovelling mulch, weeding my flowers in the spring, doing the wood...by tracking it.
It added the calories I ate them sometimes, sometimes I didn't just like before...nothing changed...and that's my point.
Even those "extra chores" we do maybe 1x a year or 2x a year or even maybe a couple times a month (shovelling driveway of snow) does not impact weight loss...5 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »apparently another unpopular opinion I have is not logging things like "cleaning" or "gardening" but only purposeful exercise done with intent on improving health and fitness....
Not to cross threads but the thread wasn't about normal level of house hold chores.
Stated as you have above I would agree with you.
Agreed and I should have clarified more with "extra cleaning" but for me Gardening did that since it's not a constant everyday affair.
but regardless I don't think cleaning, throwing in wood or anything not done to improve health and fitness should be logged for extra calories...
As a general rule, I agree with you. Daily household chores do not get counted. The once-in-a-while deep cleaning gets accounted for in my steps anyway. The only thing I have logged was a few weeks ago when I set up my brand new perennial garden. 3 hours of spading, tilling, composting, planting and mulching took a lot of effort. You bet I was going to take credit for it (although I only claimed one hour of the three).
I have a neighbor who gave me a half face cord of chopped wood. If I was to chop my own, yes that would get logged. I have no problem if people log household work that is very infrequent, takes a lot of effort, and burns more than the usual calories. Otherwise, no.
hence my assumption my stance is unpopular.
I have this stance for a reason too...
When I was fat and getting fatter I did all this stuff too. Throw in wood, did the gardens, created new ones by hand...all that stuff...I stayed fat. It didn't help me lose weight.
Even after I lost the weight and was in maintenance last summer I thought lets see how it will impact my days shovelling mulch, weeding my flowers in the spring, doing the wood...by tracking it.
It added the calories I ate them sometimes, sometimes I didn't just like before...nothing changed...and that's my point.
Even those "extra chores" we do maybe 1x a year or 2x a year or even maybe a couple times a month (shovelling driveway of snow) does not impact weight loss...
I'm with you- clearing brush, moving tree debris etc at our new house this summer hasn't done anything meaningful for my weight, even though it's not normal activity for me.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »...
My guess is there's not actually much disagreement here, so why the arguing? ...
It's because some people just need to be "right."jamesakrobinson wrote: »Unpopular opinions? How's this?
Obese women who call themselves "average" body type on POF and have only headshots for photos. Experience tells me that their true body type is going to be "A few extra pounds". (it's worse yet if someone claims to be "athletic" but carries 30% body fat or more)
Sadly, "average" is technically almost correct now that obesity is an epidemic.
No photos where your torso is visible in a POF profile is now an automatic assumption you carry excessive fat!
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate overweight people, but I really do dislike dishonesty... especially when you know for sure that your lie will be evident on first meeting!
Not sure what this has to do with health and fitness...but dude, it's POF.
it's the fact that they can put average and it's true...
Maybe, but since his issue - as he stated - was with dishonesty, yet what they said is true...4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »...
My guess is there's not actually much disagreement here, so why the arguing? ...
It's because some people just need to be "right."jamesakrobinson wrote: »Unpopular opinions? How's this?
Obese women who call themselves "average" body type on POF and have only headshots for photos. Experience tells me that their true body type is going to be "A few extra pounds". (it's worse yet if someone claims to be "athletic" but carries 30% body fat or more)
Sadly, "average" is technically almost correct now that obesity is an epidemic.
No photos where your torso is visible in a POF profile is now an automatic assumption you carry excessive fat!
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate overweight people, but I really do dislike dishonesty... especially when you know for sure that your lie will be evident on first meeting!
Not sure what this has to do with health and fitness...but dude, it's POF.
it's the fact that they can put average and it's true...
Maybe, but since his issue - as he stated - was with dishonesty, yet what they said is true...
you have a point there.0 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »apparently another unpopular opinion I have is not logging things like "cleaning" or "gardening" but only purposeful exercise done with intent on improving health and fitness....
Not to cross threads but the thread wasn't about normal level of house hold chores.
Stated as you have above I would agree with you.
Agreed and I should have clarified more with "extra cleaning" but for me Gardening did that since it's not a constant everyday affair.
but regardless I don't think cleaning, throwing in wood or anything not done to improve health and fitness should be logged for extra calories...
As a general rule, I agree with you. Daily household chores do not get counted. The once-in-a-while deep cleaning gets accounted for in my steps anyway. The only thing I have logged was a few weeks ago when I set up my brand new perennial garden. 3 hours of spading, tilling, composting, planting and mulching took a lot of effort. You bet I was going to take credit for it (although I only claimed one hour of the three).
I have a neighbor who gave me a half face cord of chopped wood. If I was to chop my own, yes that would get logged. I have no problem if people log household work that is very infrequent, takes a lot of effort, and burns more than the usual calories. Otherwise, no.
hence my assumption my stance is unpopular.
I have this stance for a reason too...
When I was fat and getting fatter I did all this stuff too. Throw in wood, did the gardens, created new ones by hand...all that stuff...I stayed fat. It didn't help me lose weight.
Even after I lost the weight and was in maintenance last summer I thought lets see how it will impact my days shovelling mulch, weeding my flowers in the spring, doing the wood...by tracking it.
It added the calories I ate them sometimes, sometimes I didn't just like before...nothing changed...and that's my point.
Even those "extra chores" we do maybe 1x a year or 2x a year or even maybe a couple times a month (shovelling driveway of snow) does not impact weight loss...
I find the bolded part a bit perplexing whenever I see that claim of "I did it when I was fat so it shouldn't count." There are plenty of people who did some sort of regular exercise, whether it was walking, running, lifting, or some other fitness program, before they started losing weight. I even know some overweight people who start exercise program to feel better, not to lose weight. And most of us would agree that, regardless of the type of exercise, it's CI vs CO (and generally monitoring or controlling CI) that makes the difference in weight loss.
Why, then, is heavy-duty cleaning or yard work so frequently discounted as a type of exercise? Like most people in this particular discussion, I'm not meaning the day-to-day upkeep, but things like tilling or digging, hauling, moving furniture, etc. Granted, it is harder to accurately track calories burned and one must be more careful in eating those calories back (which is why I tend to deliberately "under-log" such activities, both by intensity and time, when I chose to log them), but that doesn't mean that they don't "count." My opinion is that, if I feel like I actually had a workout from doing the activity (comparing how I feel to what it's like after a good cardio/lifting session at the gym), I'm going to count it as a workout for the day. Especially if it leaves me feeling like I would be overworking things to then go to the gym.
That said, I do agree that it is a valid point to raise when someone says "Help! I can't lose!" My advise is generally to tighten up their food logging and make sure that they are not overestimating exercise calories. But if everything else is going well (weight loss, etc), then it shouldn't be an issue.14 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »apparently another unpopular opinion I have is not logging things like "cleaning" or "gardening" but only purposeful exercise done with intent on improving health and fitness....
Not to cross threads but the thread wasn't about normal level of house hold chores.
Stated as you have above I would agree with you.
Agreed and I should have clarified more with "extra cleaning" but for me Gardening did that since it's not a constant everyday affair.
but regardless I don't think cleaning, throwing in wood or anything not done to improve health and fitness should be logged for extra calories...
As a general rule, I agree with you. Daily household chores do not get counted. The once-in-a-while deep cleaning gets accounted for in my steps anyway. The only thing I have logged was a few weeks ago when I set up my brand new perennial garden. 3 hours of spading, tilling, composting, planting and mulching took a lot of effort. You bet I was going to take credit for it (although I only claimed one hour of the three).
I have a neighbor who gave me a half face cord of chopped wood. If I was to chop my own, yes that would get logged. I have no problem if people log household work that is very infrequent, takes a lot of effort, and burns more than the usual calories. Otherwise, no.
hence my assumption my stance is unpopular.
I have this stance for a reason too...
When I was fat and getting fatter I did all this stuff too. Throw in wood, did the gardens, created new ones by hand...all that stuff...I stayed fat. It didn't help me lose weight.
Even after I lost the weight and was in maintenance last summer I thought lets see how it will impact my days shovelling mulch, weeding my flowers in the spring, doing the wood...by tracking it.
It added the calories I ate them sometimes, sometimes I didn't just like before...nothing changed...and that's my point.
Even those "extra chores" we do maybe 1x a year or 2x a year or even maybe a couple times a month (shovelling driveway of snow) does not impact weight loss...
No, but it does give you enough extra calories for that guilt free hot toddy or cup of hot chocolate when done with the shoveling.8 -
megdnoorman wrote: »Penthesilea514 wrote: »Personally I've found that as the weight has come off, I've become less tolerant of people making excuses as to why they can't lose weight themselves.
This is definitely an issue for me. It is hard for me to listen to people complaining about their weight or health and then listen to all the excuses about why they "can't". I am not talking about actual diagnosed by an MD/DO/licensed health professional medical issues, but "I'm too busy" 'I could never do that" "I don't want to eat salads all day".
If they don't say anything, fine- I am going to assume that they are doing their own thing. But don't *kitten* about yourself and then DON'T DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE. Drives me a little nuts.
Yes. This drives me crazy too. If you aren't losing weight, and doctors can't find a reason why, then you aren't losing because you aren't trying hard enough.
As for unpopular beliefs, I am on a ketogenic diet... so, I feel like my whole WOE is unpopular lol, or maybe too popular to the point of trend, depending on who you talk to.
I drink diet soda (Coke and Fresca mainly) and I don't feel bad about it. Aspartame for the win!
I think low-fat "diet" foods like low fat salad dressing, half and half or creamers, cookies/crackers etc. are weird and probably no better for you in the long run than just eating the real thing (I know this makes my diet soda love hypocritical lol).
0 -
Don't beat yourself up about the Diet Coke and Fresca. Changing too many things at once will lead to a crash and burn. Changing one or 2 things at a time and sticking with it is much better. If you stick with your diet and are losing the weight give yourself a break. You will give up the Diet drinks when you are ready.2
-
Don't beat yourself up about the Diet Coke and Fresca. Changing too many things at once will lead to a crash and burn. Changing one or 2 things at a time and sticking with it is much better. If you stick with your diet and are losing the weight give yourself a break. You will give up the Diet drinks when you are ready.
Or maybe they'll never give up the diet drinks because there's no need?18 -
Don't beat yourself up about the Diet Coke and Fresca. Changing too many things at once will lead to a crash and burn. Changing one or 2 things at a time and sticking with it is much better. If you stick with your diet and are losing the weight give yourself a break. You will give up the Diet drinks when you are ready.
The OP wasn't beating her self up about diet drinks.
I for one see no reason to ever give them up. Like the OP, Aspartame for the win for me, amino acids, less calories and tasty. Yum3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Don't beat yourself up about the Diet Coke and Fresca. Changing too many things at once will lead to a crash and burn. Changing one or 2 things at a time and sticking with it is much better. If you stick with your diet and are losing the weight give yourself a break. You will give up the Diet drinks when you are ready.
Or maybe they'll never give up the diet drinks because there's no need?
Only when I'm dead will you pry the Coke Zero from my hands.......
6 -
@SezxyStef
I don't get your point of view. If someone is on this site and using the MFP way of losing weight, then any activity over what the activity level they have set should be taking into account regardless of if it is exercise or extra cleaning (in the case of the post you are referring to, 3.5 hours of heavy cleaning at an animal shelter).
If they are at a deficit already, then increasing that deficit by going substantially over their set activity level is going to put someone in too big a deficit. Doing that on a regular basis is detrimental to their health.
Doesn't matter if it's building a fence or 30 mins on a treadmill.
If it is a regular occurrence, then yes the activity level should be set accordingly.
My watch does this for me. I take the calories it gives me and eat them regardless of what they are for. It's how this (MFP) is supposed to work.19 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »@SezxyStef
I don't get your point of view. If someone is on this site and using the MFP way of losing weight, then any activity over what the activity level they have set should be taking into account regardless of if it is exercise or extra cleaning (in the case of the post you are referring to, 3.5 hours of heavy cleaning at an animal shelter).
If they are at a deficit already, then increasing that deficit by going substantially over their set activity level is going to put someone in too big a deficit. Doing that on a regular basis is detrimental to their health.
Doesn't matter if it's building a fence or 30 mins on a treadmill.
If it is a regular occurrence, then yes the activity level should be set accordingly.
My watch does this for me. I take the calories it gives me and eat them regardless of what they are for. It's how this (MFP) is supposed to work.
I think that if you are engaging in a lot of significant non-exercise activity that you want to capture, this is where a fitness tracker may be useful. I have a Garmin Fenix 3 HR with a continuous HRM that measures my calorie burn 24 hours a day. So if I'm mowing the lawn or helping a friend move I don't necessarily have to separately account for an "exercise event" to capture the additional calories burned, it is automatically recorded.1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »@SezxyStef
I don't get your point of view. If someone is on this site and using the MFP way of losing weight, then any activity over what the activity level they have set should be taking into account regardless of if it is exercise or extra cleaning (in the case of the post you are referring to, 3.5 hours of heavy cleaning at an animal shelter).
If they are at a deficit already, then increasing that deficit by going substantially over their set activity level is going to put someone in too big a deficit. Doing that on a regular basis is detrimental to their health.
Doesn't matter if it's building a fence or 30 mins on a treadmill.
If it is a regular occurrence, then yes the activity level should be set accordingly.
My watch does this for me. I take the calories it gives me and eat them regardless of what they are for. It's how this (MFP) is supposed to work.
I think that if you are engaging in a lot of significant non-exercise activity that you want to capture, this is where a fitness tracker may be useful. I have a Garmin Fenix 3 HR with a continuous HRM that measures my calorie burn 24 hours a day. So if I'm mowing the lawn or helping a friend move I don't necessarily have to separately account for an "exercise event" to capture the additional calories burned, it is automatically recorded.
This. Or in your base activity level. If it's a day here and there you aren't going to be in too big a deficit overall.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »@SezxyStef
I don't get your point of view. If someone is on this site and using the MFP way of losing weight, then any activity over what the activity level they have set should be taking into account regardless of if it is exercise or extra cleaning (in the case of the post you are referring to, 3.5 hours of heavy cleaning at an animal shelter).
If they are at a deficit already, then increasing that deficit by going substantially over their set activity level is going to put someone in too big a deficit. Doing that on a regular basis is detrimental to their health.
Doesn't matter if it's building a fence or 30 mins on a treadmill.
If it is a regular occurrence, then yes the activity level should be set accordingly.
My watch does this for me. I take the calories it gives me and eat them regardless of what they are for. It's how this (MFP) is supposed to work.
I think that if you are engaging in a lot of significant non-exercise activity that you want to capture, this is where a fitness tracker may be useful. I have a Garmin Fenix 3 HR with a continuous HRM that measures my calorie burn 24 hours a day. So if I'm mowing the lawn or helping a friend move I don't necessarily have to separately account for an "exercise event" to capture the additional calories burned, it is automatically recorded.
This is what I do (Garmin Vivoactive HR). I just don't get why it should be disregarded if it isn't intentional exercise. Just means someones deficit will be more than planned.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions