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
-
Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.3
-
missemmamm wrote: »Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.
I think most do it for health...that is the only motivator that seems to really get people going...the threat of early death...
I know I finally did it for health...I've kept at it for health too...
partially because I am vain anyway and felt I looked fine the way I was...and my husband told me so.4 -
missemmamm wrote: »Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.
I started for health with a sprinkle of vanity.
I am continuing for health but at the stage where vanity is outpacing health.
I don't think there is anything wrong with vanity as long as it isn't all consuming or you become an insufferable cocky *kitten*.6 -
missemmamm wrote: »Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.
I made the bulk of my change for health, and health keeps me in the game in terms of daily cardio and compliance with calorie limits.
The nitpicky 5-10 pounds I'm messing with now and different lifting things I'll keep trying for body composition?
That's all vanity.
I think people can entertain more than one motive at a time.11 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?21 -
robm1brown wrote: »I can eat well over 1900 calories in a sitting if it is the wrong type of food.
I call that dinner4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »missemmamm wrote: »Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.
[ or you become an insufferable cocky *kitten*.
You Called ?
15 -
blackhawkgirl91 wrote: »-I have trust issues with anyone who says a fruit or vegetable is "bad" (potatoes, carrots, bananas, seriously???).
bananas ARE bad. they smell awful. should not be allowed.
/continue with your regularly scheduled discussion.
5 -
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »My UO: fad diets are helpful because at a minimum they make people be more aware of their food and conscious about what they put in their bodies. The human body is massively adaptable, if you feed it a steady Paleo, South Beach, Vegan, Keto, or whatever diet it'll adapt to use it most efficiently. People don't pay enough attention to what they eat, so I'm not giving anybody *kitten* for paying attention, even if their ideas about why are total hokum.
I think it's more about the sustainability of those diets that causes the issue rather than the awareness. People know when they are fat. For many reasons, people can't stick to them. So they rebound on their weight and are back to square one and lost time. They wouldn't be so successful if they actually worked, therefore they don't help anyone because if they did we'd all be at a healthy weight.
I attribute failure more to people just being weak willed. I think it's silly to believe somebody who can't follow diet that tells them exactly what to eat and when would somehow how more success just being told "eat fewer calories." Maybe a minority of them can, but there's always a minority that can achieve something the majority can't.
Most people who need to lose weight, like me, got into that situation because our natural food decisions are incredibly poor.
Structure is important. But maybe I just believe that because I was in the military, like everybody else in my family for the last 300 years.
Sheer willpower is the worst possible strategy that you could pick for a diet. It's the reason most diets fail. I'm one of the most pleasure-loving food-loving lazy people I know, so I work within the bounds of what I know I am using it to my advantage. I may get fascinated with things quickly with which comes a lot of willpower, but it fizzles out just as quickly. I believe the fizzling out happens to most people. That's why I believe willpower is a bad thing to lean on. It would only take you as far as you are interested/willing/able. After that you're on your own. You need something more stable and reliable, like habits, environment control, mental tricks, manipulating the variables around situations...etc.
Doing the exact opposite by taking willpower out of the equation wherever possible has worked much better for me and is much kinder to my mental health. The bulk of my effort when working on a diet is spent on developing ways and strategies that make dieting easier. It's an ongoing search and I'm still learning new things even after 5 years of dieting, and I believe I will continue discovering things for years to come. I wouldn't have lasted that long if I chose the white-knuckle approach. If I had to walk through life clenching my teeth I would rather stay fat. The few years I'm adding to my life by losing weight are not worth it if I'm not going to enjoy them.
Now I'm losing weight (or maintaining, or controllably gaining) while enjoying all kinds of foods and with little impact on my social life and mental health.9 -
missemmamm wrote: »Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.
Nothing wrong with wanting to lose weight for aesthetics. But, there are quite a few of us here who did lose the extra weight, due to health conditions that were improved with the weight loss, (I normalized a prediabetic glucose number, for example).
3 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »missemmamm wrote: »Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.
Nothing wrong with wanting to lose weight for aesthetics. But, there are quite a few of us here who did lose the extra weight, due to health conditions that were improved with the weight loss, (I normalized a prediabetic glucose number, for example).
Yes. The one and only reason I lost weight is for my glucose numbers. I was fine with the way I looked and if I had a guarantee being fat would not affect my health I would regain at least some of the weight.3 -
missemmamm wrote: »Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.
This is similar to the motivation behind brushing your teeth – do you do it mostly for dental health or for the aesthetic benefit of having whiter teeth and fresh breath?
It would be difficult to put in all of this effort exercising and counting calories if there wasn’t an associated body composition and enhanced cardio reward in addition to health benefits. A significant portion of my identity revolves around being an active, “fit” person (my identity for most of my adult life.) It was actually the specter of losing that identity (in addition to unsatisfactory bloodwork stats) that triggered the fitness “midlife crisis” in my early 40s that I am still riding.5 -
I totally admit it was a combination of vanity (if wanting to be happier with how you look is vanity, I wouldn't necessarily call it that) and lifestyle (enjoying active leisure and wanting to be more able to run and bike long distances and hike and so on again) for me.
I respect the health motivation and will give lip service to it, and I always thought I SHOULD eventually get back in shape for health, but absent some kind of consequence -- and I'd consider bad bloodwork a consequence but I never had it, my bloodwork was always good -- I find it disturbingly easy to keep thinking "oh, yes, for health I really should lose weight and get back in shape, but tomorrow" rather endlessly. I did that with drinking far more than recommended for long enough, I'm sure I could have continued for quite a long time thinking I had plenty of time to fix it and one more day wouldn't matter if health (absent real consequences yet, just it being a risk factor) was all that was motivating me. And maybe because I wasn't fat for that long and because I've always been at least somewhat active (walking everywhere, doing some biking, running up and down stairs just because I live in the fourth floor), I never did feel like my body was rebelling against me. But I did know I could not so easily run and was angry with myself for getting out of shape and wanted to feel more like me.
And, sure, look better, why not?3 -
missemmamm wrote: »Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.
Honestly, It's just health. My reflux isn't as bad, and I can do some of the more extreme gymnastic/yoga positions with a slightly lower BW. It's really for my shoulders more than my knees, and honestly, If you're upside down on one hand, nobody cares how heavy you are(Well that's not true...it's more impressive at 260 than at 190)
4 -
stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)30 -
missemmamm wrote: »Mine is that as much as most people will tell you that they do what ever food/fitness regime they do for health, most do it for looks. IMHO. Now I have seen some people make big changes because of failing health, but that's not what I mean.
My reason for fitness is all about health and necessity. Life on a farm requires a good deal of activity and at my age I have seen too many times what happens from years of being sedentary.
But the weight loss was more or less about looks. I'd been thin for most of my adult life and when I put on some weight I just didn't look or feel like me anymore. Losing the weight was as much about feeling good in my skin as liking what I saw in the mirror, though both are important to me.1 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
Populations have thrived on high carb diets. I suggest you read up on Blue Zones.
Here's an image showing a breakdown of the diet from one of the populations studied, the traditional Okinawan diet (note that I said traditional, not the diet there that's had Western food introduced).
The most interesting thing to me to note about that diet is the overall calorie consumption. It's quite low.
I know that someone else can come along and pull out another population that thrived with another macro mix, and I think that's the point. I'd be interested mainly in their overall calorie consumption, not in their macro mix. I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to the Okinawans.
16 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
Populations have thrived on high carb diets. I suggest you read up on Blue Zones.
Here's an image showing a breakdown of the diet from one of the populations studied, the traditional Okinawan diet (note that I said traditional, not the diet there that's had Western food introduced).
The most interesting thing to me to note about that diet is the overall calorie consumption. It's quite low.
I know that someone else can come along and pull out another population that thrived with another macro mix, and I think that's the point. I'd be interested mainly in their overall calorie consumption, not in their macro mix. I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to the Okinawans.
The Inuit people actually have a diet high in fats and protein.
I believe the average calorie consumption is quoted at 3100...with 50% of it coming from fat.
Then there is the Masai..
I know that there has been research done on both populations and have found some issues with it like bone density etc but per one study I read...
"...research often times brings forth more questions than answers...."
I don't think that pulling out "extremes" in today's climate of all the available food really proves anything other than this is what they did and they are in an extreme.1 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
What on earth does the possession of hooves have to do with whether or not a human can maintain health on a diet without meat?11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
Populations have thrived on high carb diets. I suggest you read up on Blue Zones.
Here's an image showing a breakdown of the diet from one of the populations studied, the traditional Okinawan diet (note that I said traditional, not the diet there that's had Western food introduced).
The most interesting thing to me to note about that diet is the overall calorie consumption. It's quite low.
I know that someone else can come along and pull out another population that thrived with another macro mix, and I think that's the point. I'd be interested mainly in their overall calorie consumption, not in their macro mix. I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to the Okinawans.
Good point, and I agree that humans are adaptable. Some observations...
The very high carb diet above is also very low GI.
The population is very lean and also has a tendency toward quite low muscle mass.
To address your question about a different (pre contact, or at least before adopting the diet of Europeans) I submit the Inuit. Almost zero carbs for thousands of years and never knew diabetes, tooth decay, or any of dozens of other conditions... a very muscular group, not particularly lean but actual obesity was rare until about a hundred years ago...
Now... diabetes, dental problems, and obesity are rampant (even worse than the general population) in communities, but still rare amongst those who live on "country food".10 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
So what's the change since the 50s/60s
Elimination of recess, Ubiquity of cars/televisions/internet...ie no more go out and play.
There may be a minor impact of diet, but the radical reduction in TDEE is much more significant.15 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
Populations have thrived on high carb diets. I suggest you read up on Blue Zones.
Here's an image showing a breakdown of the diet from one of the populations studied, the traditional Okinawan diet (note that I said traditional, not the diet there that's had Western food introduced).
The most interesting thing to me to note about that diet is the overall calorie consumption. It's quite low.
I know that someone else can come along and pull out another population that thrived with another macro mix, and I think that's the point. I'd be interested mainly in their overall calorie consumption, not in their macro mix. I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to the Okinawans.
The Inuit people actually have a diet high in fats and protein.
I believe the average calorie consumption is quoted at 3100...with 50% of it coming from fat.
Then there is the Masai..
I know that there has been research done on both populations and have found some issues with it like bone density etc but per one study I read...
"...research often times brings forth more questions than answers...."
I don't think that pulling out "extremes" in today's climate of all the available food really proves anything other than this is what they did and they are in an extreme.
What's your point?
I'm not trying to illustrate extremes here, I'm trying to show that carbs aren't the enemy.
Note I should have said calorie consumption in relation to TDEE. I'm sure that the overall need for calories among the Innuit is higher given the climate, possible need for hunting, etc.5 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
I can go to the grocery store tomorrow and fill my cart with foods comprised of any macros mix I choose, and this has generally been the case in the US for the past 100 years; almost all of those poor health conditions are entirely the result of bad eating habits created by affluence and the ease of availability of high carb / sugar / sodium / saturated foods through our industrialized food supply. I fail to see what climate change has had to do with any “first world” food choices.4 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »
LOL Gladly but the US has already performed the DEFINITIVE study lasting several decades with tens of millions of participants...
I will acknowledge up front that correlation does not prove causation... But.
From the time the US Food Guide came out turning the wisdom of lifetimes (eat meat and vegetables and supplement with a little starch 'cause it's cheap calories... remember you feed prisoners bread and water, or your poor bread and beer) completely upside down with carbs as the majority on the base of a "food pyramid" Obesity and diabetes have gone up in a logarithmic scale every year.
"Adult Onset Diabetes" was NEVER (yes I'm using an absolute) seen In ANYONE under 25 before this. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease had also NEVER been seen in a child.
Both of these conditions are now common. There is a PERFECT 1:1 correlation.
Not proof? Sure, the same way there was no "proof" that smoking was harmful in the 70s.
I can also just look in a mirror or at my Dexa history.
The thermogenic effect of food has also shown numerous times that while carbs and protein each provide 4 calories per gram, protein requires energy expenditure to process.
Do you know what makes up most of the calories in vegetables? Hint: it's neither fat nor protein.
And guess what also happened at the same time as any food guidelines came out? A never before in history seen abundance of food for virtually everyone in society from the poorest to the richest alongside the steady decline of physical jobs.
Not to speak of the fact that the people never actually followed the guidelines to begin with (which btw. called for lots of vegetables and a decent amount of protein...).
And smoking was considered a health hazard for a very long time, you're parroting a bunch of myths here.
And lastly the TEF of foods is so small it's basically insignificant. It's 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories eaten, i.e. if you eat 2000 calories and eat a whopping 200 grams of protein (more than enough for any bodybuilder) = 40% of your calories vs. eating 50 grams of protein (absolute minimum recommendation) = 10% of your calories that's 7 calories * 2 * 3 = 42 extra calories. Big deal.
So tl;dr: not a single thing you just said was true.
BTW. that's 1:1 exactly the same arguments I've seen countless times repeated, do you guys get a pamphlet somewhere?
1) Food was both abundant and cheap in North America throughout the 1950s and 1960s
2) Diabetes was not common, and most instances were genetic conditions
3) No case of non alcoholic fatty liver disease had ever been recorded in anyone under 50
4) No case of type 2 diabetes had ever been recorded in a child (thus the no longer valid name "Adult Onset Diabetes")
I acknowledge your inference that vegetables are carbs... and submit that I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans, we don't have have hooves. :-)
Denial is not just a river in Northern Africa. It's also one of the reasons for record breaking storms, rising sea levels, the obesity epidemic, and childhood diabetes.
Until recently it was also the reason the Flintstones and Buggs Bunny were allowed to advertise cigarettes.
The mainstream is just beginning to acknowledge that more fat and less carbs than have been recommended for decades are far healthier. (the CBC even recently publicized a large, peer reviewed study promoting that conclusion)
Mark my words.
Carbs should be the smallest of your macros. (fats and protein are what you evolved over millions of years to run on)
Climate change is scientific fact, not a theory (and human activity is its primary cause)
Populations have thrived on high carb diets. I suggest you read up on Blue Zones.
Here's an image showing a breakdown of the diet from one of the populations studied, the traditional Okinawan diet (note that I said traditional, not the diet there that's had Western food introduced).
The most interesting thing to me to note about that diet is the overall calorie consumption. It's quite low.
I know that someone else can come along and pull out another population that thrived with another macro mix, and I think that's the point. I'd be interested mainly in their overall calorie consumption, not in their macro mix. I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to the Okinawans.
Good point, and I agree that humans are adaptable. Some observations...
The very high carb diet above is also very low GI.
The population is very lean and also has a tendency toward quite low muscle mass.
To address your question about a different (pre contact, or at least before adopting the diet of Europeans) I submit the Inuit. Almost zero carbs for thousands of years and never knew diabetes, tooth decay, or any of dozens of other conditions... a very muscular group, not particularly lean but actual obesity was rare until about a hundred years ago...
Now... diabetes, dental problems, and obesity are rampant (even worse than the general population) in communities, but still rare amongst those who live on "country food".
I didn't ask a question about different. I'm well aware of the Innuit and the Massai.
You missed my point.
You're pointing to carbs as causative, and I'm showing you a population that thrived on them, so they clearly don't cause anything.
I could show you, a chart, if I could find it, for the Sardinians, who eat bread made with refined grains. That's high GI. They are another Blue Zone population.
So there goes your GI theory.
My main point is that obesity is likely a multi-factorial issue.
Attempts to explain it by saying it comes down to one factor and one factor only are foolish and wrong-headed.
Different people thrive on different macro balances, and different people build wonderful physiques on different macro balances.
Macro balance affects satiety, compliance, and dietary satisfaction. Those factors are not universal. To argue that they are is foolish.
I'm glad you found what works for you, man, but honestly, do some more research. What you think are facts are personal opinions based on what works for you. That doesn't make what works for you apply to everyone.16 -
And this is really all we know...GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »obesity is likely a multi-factorial issue.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Attempts to explain it by saying it comes down to one factor and one factor only are foolish and wrong-headed.
Indeed...
4 -
@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're vegetarian.
8 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're vegetarian.
And pandas.7 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.8 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s.
And it's been happening all over again with carbs...17 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@jamesakrobinson Koalas and rabbits don't have hooves either and they're herbivores.
LMAO OK
I was just trying to illustrate a point with a bit of levity.
Too many people here seem to think in absolutes. My point has never been that my carnivorous preference is necessarily the "best" way to eat for everyone, nor that it is the only way to get lean. Different people have different metabolisms, and that is almost certainly also influenced by genetics too... where your ancestors evolved (ergo what available foods allowed them the opportunity to thrive and reproduce) and what kind and how much activity you do are huge factors too.
Marathon runners and strength athletes have different needs... and so people don't take those as absolute too... also everything in between or even being sedentary. (in which case I think less calories are a good idea)
My most important point is less about the evils of carbs and much more about the importance of fat!
Demonizing fat is the giant disservice that the US FDA did in the 1970s. That was the biggest instigating factor in starting the obesity and diabetes epidemic that has since begun to spread around the world.
It.
Was.
Not.
People did not stop eating fats. They cared as much about dietary recommendations back than as they do now, which is not one bit.14
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions