Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Options
Replies
-
diannethegeek wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
You think people followed the guidelines? Think again. There is more "I know I shouldn't eat this but..." than meets the eye. You're talking as if people have been eating nothing but rice cakes since the recommendations. From the chart you will notice countries with a whole spectrum of obesity rates at any fat intake level, and in this screenshot in particular all the countries that eat less fat have a lower obesity rate than the US. You can't pin obesity on carbs or the perceived (not real) lack of fat.
Not sure where you live but I have a very difficult time finding full fat yogurt, ice-cream, even sour cream...
The whole dairy isle is low fat, reduced fat, or no fat...
No fat yogurt?? I call that pudding!
The same is true of almost every isle in almost every grocery store here. The fat has been removed and replaced with sugars or chemicals.
It's insidious. The general public thinks they're making healthy choices but they are in fact doing the exact opposite.
Margerine is another great example... butter is full of saturated fat, and is quite healthy but people were convinced that margerine, full of trans dats and devoid of any nutrional value was the healthier choice... That's just a couple examples but there are thousands...
Every grocery store I've been in has varying degrees of fat in dairy from full to none...also, reduced fat dairy products do not add sugar and other chemicals...
I suggest you read the label
What, exactly, do you think is being added to skim milk? Please be specific.
My sincere apologies. I was not implying that removing the milk from the milk, turning into cloudy water adds anything ;-)
Yogurt, ice-cream, sour cream, and cheeses... They add dextrose (sugar), maltodextrose (sugar), starches of various kinds (essentially sugar), dozens of thickening agents that I can't spell, often several variations of salt...
I see that my position gets a few people's hackles up so I will concede that IF you're seeing results from what I consider to be misguided means then GREAT!
Congratulations.
To clarify, I brought up climate change because I think that denying that high carb low fat diets are harmful to the health of the vast majority of the world population is very similar to denying that human activities are accelerating climate change... It was intended as a metaphor, not an implication that the two were somehow related. Some of you got it, well done!
I'm out.
NO, They don't. As demonstrated above.
Ugh... Dragged back in... Quoted from a couple sources
... nonfat yogurt is made from non fat milk (with a high percentage of milk sugar) by adding modified food starch and fructose (fruit sugar) among other things. Then they add some natural and artificial flavors, some preservatives and coloring and three (!) different artificial sweeteners (aspartame, acesulfame K and sucralose).
Out again
It's polite to cite your sources: https://www.dietdoctor.com/why-americans-are-obese-nonfat-yogurt
Yes.jamesakrobinson wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
You think people followed the guidelines? Think again. There is more "I know I shouldn't eat this but..." than meets the eye. You're talking as if people have been eating nothing but rice cakes since the recommendations. From the chart you will notice countries with a whole spectrum of obesity rates at any fat intake level, and in this screenshot in particular all the countries that eat less fat have a lower obesity rate than the US. You can't pin obesity on carbs or the perceived (not real) lack of fat.
Not sure where you live but I have a very difficult time finding full fat yogurt, ice-cream, even sour cream...
The whole dairy isle is low fat, reduced fat, or no fat...
No fat yogurt?? I call that pudding!
The same is true of almost every isle in almost every grocery store here. The fat has been removed and replaced with sugars or chemicals.
It's insidious. The general public thinks they're making healthy choices but they are in fact doing the exact opposite.
Margerine is another great example... butter is full of saturated fat, and is quite healthy but people were convinced that margerine, full of trans dats and devoid of any nutrional value was the healthier choice... That's just a couple examples but there are thousands...
Every grocery store I've been in has varying degrees of fat in dairy from full to none...also, reduced fat dairy products do not add sugar and other chemicals...
I suggest you read the label
What, exactly, do you think is being added to skim milk? Please be specific.
My sincere apologies. I was not implying that removing the milk from the milk, turning into cloudy water adds anything ;-)
Yogurt, ice-cream, sour cream, and cheeses... They add dextrose (sugar), maltodextrose (sugar), starches of various kinds (essentially sugar), dozens of thickening agents that I can't spell, often several variations of salt...
I see that my position gets a few people's hackles up so I will concede that IF you're seeing results from what I consider to be misguided means then GREAT!
Congratulations.
To clarify, I brought up climate change because I think that denying that high carb low fat diets are harmful to the health of the vast majority of the world population is very similar to denying that human activities are accelerating climate change... It was intended as a metaphor, not an implication that the two were somehow related. Some of you got it, well done!
I'm out.
NO, They don't. As demonstrated above.
Ugh... Dragged back in... Quoted from a couple sources
... nonfat yogurt is made from non fat milk (with a high percentage of milk sugar) by adding modified food starch and fructose (fruit sugar) among other things. Then they add some natural and artificial flavors, some preservatives and coloring and three (!) different artificial sweeteners (aspartame, acesulfame K and sucralose).
Out again
Why would you trust dietdoctor over actual labels? I eat Fage, mostly, all kinds (0%, 2%, full fat), and read the label and it is as cwolfman said.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
You think people followed the guidelines? Think again. There is more "I know I shouldn't eat this but..." than meets the eye. You're talking as if people have been eating nothing but rice cakes since the recommendations. From the chart you will notice countries with a whole spectrum of obesity rates at any fat intake level, and in this screenshot in particular all the countries that eat less fat have a lower obesity rate than the US. You can't pin obesity on carbs or the perceived (not real) lack of fat.
Not sure where you live but I have a very difficult time finding full fat yogurt, ice-cream, even sour cream...
The whole dairy isle is low fat, reduced fat, or no fat...
No fat yogurt?? I call that pudding!
The same is true of almost every isle in almost every grocery store here. The fat has been removed and replaced with sugars or chemicals.
It's insidious. The general public thinks they're making healthy choices but they are in fact doing the exact opposite.
Margerine is another great example... butter is full of saturated fat, and is quite healthy but people were convinced that margerine, full of trans dats and devoid of any nutrional value was the healthier choice... That's just a couple examples but there are thousands...
Every grocery store I've been in has varying degrees of fat in dairy from full to none...also, reduced fat dairy products do not add sugar and other chemicals...
I suggest you read the label
What, exactly, do you think is being added to skim milk? Please be specific.
My sincere apologies. I was not implying that removing the milk from the milk, turning into cloudy water adds anything ;-)
Yogurt, ice-cream, sour cream, and cheeses... They add dextrose (sugar), maltodextrose (sugar), starches of various kinds (essentially sugar), dozens of thickening agents that I can't spell, often several variations of salt...
I see that my position gets a few people's hackles up so I will concede that IF you're seeing results from what I consider to be misguided means then GREAT!
Congratulations.
To clarify, I brought up climate change because I think that denying that high carb low fat diets are harmful to the health of the vast majority of the world population is very similar to denying that human activities are accelerating climate change... It was intended as a metaphor, not an implication that the two were somehow related. Some of you got it, well done!
I'm out.
NO, They don't. As demonstrated above.
Ugh... Dragged back in... Quoted from a couple sources
... nonfat yogurt is made from non fat milk (with a high percentage of milk sugar) by adding modified food starch and fructose (fruit sugar) among other things. Then they add some natural and artificial flavors, some preservatives and coloring and three (!) different artificial sweeteners (aspartame, acesulfame K and sucralose).
Out again
It's polite to cite your sources: https://www.dietdoctor.com/why-americans-are-obese-nonfat-yogurt
Yes.jamesakrobinson wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
You think people followed the guidelines? Think again. There is more "I know I shouldn't eat this but..." than meets the eye. You're talking as if people have been eating nothing but rice cakes since the recommendations. From the chart you will notice countries with a whole spectrum of obesity rates at any fat intake level, and in this screenshot in particular all the countries that eat less fat have a lower obesity rate than the US. You can't pin obesity on carbs or the perceived (not real) lack of fat.
Not sure where you live but I have a very difficult time finding full fat yogurt, ice-cream, even sour cream...
The whole dairy isle is low fat, reduced fat, or no fat...
No fat yogurt?? I call that pudding!
The same is true of almost every isle in almost every grocery store here. The fat has been removed and replaced with sugars or chemicals.
It's insidious. The general public thinks they're making healthy choices but they are in fact doing the exact opposite.
Margerine is another great example... butter is full of saturated fat, and is quite healthy but people were convinced that margerine, full of trans dats and devoid of any nutrional value was the healthier choice... That's just a couple examples but there are thousands...
Every grocery store I've been in has varying degrees of fat in dairy from full to none...also, reduced fat dairy products do not add sugar and other chemicals...
I suggest you read the label
What, exactly, do you think is being added to skim milk? Please be specific.
My sincere apologies. I was not implying that removing the milk from the milk, turning into cloudy water adds anything ;-)
Yogurt, ice-cream, sour cream, and cheeses... They add dextrose (sugar), maltodextrose (sugar), starches of various kinds (essentially sugar), dozens of thickening agents that I can't spell, often several variations of salt...
I see that my position gets a few people's hackles up so I will concede that IF you're seeing results from what I consider to be misguided means then GREAT!
Congratulations.
To clarify, I brought up climate change because I think that denying that high carb low fat diets are harmful to the health of the vast majority of the world population is very similar to denying that human activities are accelerating climate change... It was intended as a metaphor, not an implication that the two were somehow related. Some of you got it, well done!
I'm out.
NO, They don't. As demonstrated above.
Ugh... Dragged back in... Quoted from a couple sources
... nonfat yogurt is made from non fat milk (with a high percentage of milk sugar) by adding modified food starch and fructose (fruit sugar) among other things. Then they add some natural and artificial flavors, some preservatives and coloring and three (!) different artificial sweeteners (aspartame, acesulfame K and sucralose).
Out again
Why would you trust dietdoctor over actual labels? I eat Fage, mostly, all kinds (0%, 2%, full fat), and read the label and it is as cwolfman said.
Since the poster is Canadian. I suggest they check out the Liberte 0% Greek yogurt labels2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Why would you trust dietdoctor over actual labels?
Good question...1 -
cmriverside wrote: »The low sugar ice creams are mostly awful.
If I want ice cream it's full fat, regular.
BTW. This is new/limited edition:
It's good!
My UO for the day. "Limited Editions" should not be that. If they're delicious, let us buy them. It's not like Pumpkins, Cookies or Butter are endangered.
*BRB, going to the store to find this*
Tillamook is at least 1/3 of the reason that I moved back to the West Coast
Yessssss! I've been to their factory twice. Best ice cream ever. And the free cheese is to die for. Literally the only time I kick my dairy free requirements out to door!3 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Still laughing at the thought of not finding full fat foods in a Canadian grocery store.....
me too...
Can either of you please recommend a full fat FroYo or ice cream then??
I discovered Libertee Mediterranee yogurt which is 10%, or 9% for the flavored ones but not one single full fat frozen yogurt or ice cream. I have an ice cream maker so I make my own from time to time but I would love to just buy one.
You seriously can't find a full fat ice cream? Talenti, Ben and Jerry's, Haggen Daaz, etc., aren't known for being low fat . . .?
I believe that you have difficulty finding a full fat FroYo, since FroYo seems to have been basically invented in response to people being afraid of fat.
Ah... Good point on the ice cream... Those are all a little sugary for my personal tastes though. I was searching for something slightly less "decadent" lol but still fairly high fat...
Ice cream is sugary because it needs to be sugary to be smooth. I make ice cream at home almost exclusively and trust me, if you're going for something less sugary you'll need to add a lot of binders and ingredients which you seem to not like. Ice cream as we know it has always been sugary. Here's a recipe from the 1800s.
1 quart whipped cream sweetened with 3/4 cup icing sugar. Add 1 1/4 cups raspberry jelly slightly melted. Fold in the beaten whites of 5 eggs. Freeze.
You could try making something less sugary at home, but prepare for a more icy consistency. I'm not sure why you're mentioning ice cream as a product you're looking for whole fat since whole fat ice cream is the norm not the exception. There is a reason low calorie ice creams cost an arm and a leg. As for low sugar ice cream, that's a new invention and as far removed from "the good old days when people were eating fat by the buckets and staying thing" as it can get.
I do make ice cream from time to time and I do find you can make it fairly smooth without being too sweet if you use whipping cream (35%) and a little stevia. A little whey protein isolate for flavour and maybe some dark chocolate bits or some berries for texture...
Word of warning it's really filling that way!
I've made low carb (usually not sweet) ice cream at home, one I like is cardamom vanilla. It's okay texture-wise short-term (it's just whipping cream, greek yogurt, vanilla, and cardamom), but not yet ready to be served to guests (even if I'd spring a non sweetened ice cream on them -- I'm really into creamy but not particularly sweet, but it wouldn't be a normal ice cream). It's also not any lower cal than many ice creams I get (similar to gelato).
Obviously regular ice creams (I'm currently into Jeni's) have sugar, but not because lots of sugar is added to compensate for low fat, but because ice cream is sweet, normally. The low fat ones don't tend to have more sugar, they have less, since they are basically diet ice cream (Enlightened, Halo Top).2 -
Do you know, I'm not even a huge consumer of ice cream but now I want to go to town on a giant tub of the stuff.3
-
Oh, to add to the ice cream thing, I made an affogato like drink with my cardamom ice cream, and it was amazing, probably because it was quite a bit like cream, and it's decadent for me since I like coffee with cream but usually drink it black and love hot and cold together.4
-
janejellyroll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Still laughing at the thought of not finding full fat foods in a Canadian grocery store.....
me too...
Can either of you please recommend a full fat FroYo or ice cream then??
I discovered Libertee Mediterranee yogurt which is 10%, or 9% for the flavored ones but not one single full fat frozen yogurt or ice cream. I have an ice cream maker so I make my own from time to time but I would love to just buy one.
You seriously can't find a full fat ice cream? Talenti, Ben and Jerry's, Haggen Daaz, etc., aren't known for being low fat . . .?
I believe that you have difficulty finding a full fat FroYo, since FroYo seems to have been basically invented in response to people being afraid of fat.
Ah... Good point on the ice cream... Those are all a little sugary for my personal tastes though. I was searching for something slightly less "decadent" lol but still fairly high fat...
People with highly specific dietary preferences are often best served by finding recipes that reflect their preferences instead of waiting for their corner of the market to be targeted. I'd be astonished if Pinterest, for example, didn't have a selection of recipes created and used by people who share your nutritional goals.
Especially if their highly specific dietary preferences involve something like ice cream that is simultaneously extra-indulge-y (w.r.t. fat) and less indulge-y (w.r.t. sugar).4 -
I still want to find a decent low-fat ice cream up here. Had some Halo-Top on holidays and liked one flavour but didn't like the other. Only tried 2.1
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »I still want to find a decent low-fat ice cream up here. Had some Halo-Top on holidays and liked one flavour but didn't like the other. Only tried 2.
that's why I eat fudgesticks or full on ice cream although DQ has a yummy orange creamy thing...sobeys has one that's similar.0 -
There still is nothing that compares with freshly made frozen custard. Lots of egg yolks, lots of cream, lots of sugar . . .5
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »I still want to find a decent low-fat ice cream up here. Had some Halo-Top on holidays and liked one flavour but didn't like the other. Only tried 2.
that's why I eat fudgesticks or full on ice cream although DQ has a yummy orange creamy thing...sobeys has one that's similar.
Small Frosty ($0.99 right now) is filling the void for me, but it would be nice to get Halo Top or something similar.1 -
jamesakrobinson wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
You think people followed the guidelines? Think again. There is more "I know I shouldn't eat this but..." than meets the eye. You're talking as if people have been eating nothing but rice cakes since the recommendations. From the chart you will notice countries with a whole spectrum of obesity rates at any fat intake level, and in this screenshot in particular all the countries that eat less fat have a lower obesity rate than the US. You can't pin obesity on carbs or the perceived (not real) lack of fat.
Not sure where you live but I have a very difficult time finding full fat yogurt, ice-cream, even sour cream...
The whole dairy isle is low fat, reduced fat, or no fat...
No fat yogurt?? I call that pudding!
The same is true of almost every isle in almost every grocery store here. The fat has been removed and replaced with sugars or chemicals.
It's insidious. The general public thinks they're making healthy choices but they are in fact doing the exact opposite.
Margerine is another great example... butter is full of saturated fat, and is quite healthy but people were convinced that margerine, full of trans dats and devoid of any nutrional value was the healthier choice... That's just a couple examples but there are thousands...
Every grocery store I've been in has varying degrees of fat in dairy from full to none...also, reduced fat dairy products do not add sugar and other chemicals...
I suggest you read the label
What, exactly, do you think is being added to skim milk? Please be specific.
My sincere apologies. I was not implying that removing the milk from the milk, turning into cloudy water adds anything ;-)
Yogurt, ice-cream, sour cream, and cheeses... They add dextrose (sugar), maltodextrose (sugar), starches of various kinds (essentially sugar), dozens of thickening agents that I can't spell, often several variations of salt...
I see that my position gets a few people's hackles up so I will concede that IF you're seeing results from what I consider to be misguided means then GREAT!
Congratulations.
To clarify, I brought up climate change because I think that denying that high carb low fat diets are harmful to the health of the vast majority of the world population is very similar to denying that human activities are accelerating climate change... It was intended as a metaphor, not an implication that the two were somehow related. Some of you got it, well done!
I'm out.
NO, They don't. As demonstrated above.
Ugh... Dragged back in... Quoted from a couple sources
... nonfat yogurt is made from non fat milk (with a high percentage of milk sugar) by adding modified food starch and fructose (fruit sugar) among other things. Then they add some natural and artificial flavors, some preservatives and coloring and three (!) different artificial sweeteners (aspartame, acesulfame K and sucralose).
Out again
It's polite to cite your sources: https://www.dietdoctor.com/why-americans-are-obese-nonfat-yogurt
Sorry, you're quite correct (both of the above posters who pointed out my omission)
There are numerous others as well... and the actual labels on the packaging.
I posted my labels... nothing there of which you speak...2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
A personal preference is one thing, but you wrote " I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans." If you're going to make statements like that, people are going to ask what the foundation is.
As far as "natural," it may or may not be. But we know that we reject many things that are "natural" and can be perfectly healthy and happy doing things that are "unnatural." It's an irrelevant category for health.
So when you say it isn't "healthy," what facts are you basing that on? I know you're not basing it on studies of vegetarians and vegans because those studies exist and overall they don't show that they have a higher rate of illness or early death than non-vegans and vegetarians.
Oh hey as for natural, long before we evolved to eat meat, we were all eating all plants, all the time.
If people want to go way, way back, why not go all way?
If you want to talk "natural" and go back in time, you're probably looking at a diet made up mostly of fruit and foraged greens, along with grubs and ants when we can get them. Likely to be much higher carbohydrate than what our newest carbophobe has in mind as ideal.
ok, i'm not wading into this, because i think it's silly. But let's just point out that hunting and the consumption of meat predates the human species. Our ape ancestors were carnivores. Homo sapiens have never been herbivores, or pure gatherers. We evolved the ability to walk on 2 feet specifically because it made us more successful hunters.
edit: and no, that shouldn't have any bearing at all on what we decide to eat in the 21st century. Sorry Paleoids
You realize we don't actually have ape ancestors, right?1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
A personal preference is one thing, but you wrote " I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans." If you're going to make statements like that, people are going to ask what the foundation is.
As far as "natural," it may or may not be. But we know that we reject many things that are "natural" and can be perfectly healthy and happy doing things that are "unnatural." It's an irrelevant category for health.
So when you say it isn't "healthy," what facts are you basing that on? I know you're not basing it on studies of vegetarians and vegans because those studies exist and overall they don't show that they have a higher rate of illness or early death than non-vegans and vegetarians.
Oh hey as for natural, long before we evolved to eat meat, we were all eating all plants, all the time.
If people want to go way, way back, why not go all way?
If you want to talk "natural" and go back in time, you're probably looking at a diet made up mostly of fruit and foraged greens, along with grubs and ants when we can get them. Likely to be much higher carbohydrate than what our newest carbophobe has in mind as ideal.
ok, i'm not wading into this, because i think it's silly. But let's just point out that hunting and the consumption of meat predates the human species. Our ape ancestors were carnivores. Homo sapiens have never been herbivores, or pure gatherers. We evolved the ability to walk on 2 feet specifically because it made us more successful hunters.
edit: and no, that shouldn't have any bearing at all on what we decide to eat in the 21st century. Sorry Paleoids
You realize we don't actually have ape ancestors, right?
Nakalipithecus disagrees6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
A personal preference is one thing, but you wrote " I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans." If you're going to make statements like that, people are going to ask what the foundation is.
As far as "natural," it may or may not be. But we know that we reject many things that are "natural" and can be perfectly healthy and happy doing things that are "unnatural." It's an irrelevant category for health.
So when you say it isn't "healthy," what facts are you basing that on? I know you're not basing it on studies of vegetarians and vegans because those studies exist and overall they don't show that they have a higher rate of illness or early death than non-vegans and vegetarians.
Oh hey as for natural, long before we evolved to eat meat, we were all eating all plants, all the time.
If people want to go way, way back, why not go all way?
If you want to talk "natural" and go back in time, you're probably looking at a diet made up mostly of fruit and foraged greens, along with grubs and ants when we can get them. Likely to be much higher carbohydrate than what our newest carbophobe has in mind as ideal.
ok, i'm not wading into this, because i think it's silly. But let's just point out that hunting and the consumption of meat predates the human species. Our ape ancestors were carnivores. Homo sapiens have never been herbivores, or pure gatherers. We evolved the ability to walk on 2 feet specifically because it made us more successful hunters.
edit: and no, that shouldn't have any bearing at all on what we decide to eat in the 21st century. Sorry Paleoids
You realize we don't actually have ape ancestors, right?
Nakalipithecus disagrees
Per wikipedia:
"According to Kyoto University researchers, the Nakalipithecus species is very close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans."
"The evolutionary importance of Nakalipithecus is ... it provides evidence that current Homininae lineages (gorillas, chimpanzees, humans) diverged from a common ancestor"
Apes and humans evolved along separate evolutionary paths after the lines diverged from a common ancestor that was neither an ape nor a human. We are not descended from apes.
eta fix quotes1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
A personal preference is one thing, but you wrote " I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans." If you're going to make statements like that, people are going to ask what the foundation is.
As far as "natural," it may or may not be. But we know that we reject many things that are "natural" and can be perfectly healthy and happy doing things that are "unnatural." It's an irrelevant category for health.
So when you say it isn't "healthy," what facts are you basing that on? I know you're not basing it on studies of vegetarians and vegans because those studies exist and overall they don't show that they have a higher rate of illness or early death than non-vegans and vegetarians.
Oh hey as for natural, long before we evolved to eat meat, we were all eating all plants, all the time.
If people want to go way, way back, why not go all way?
If you want to talk "natural" and go back in time, you're probably looking at a diet made up mostly of fruit and foraged greens, along with grubs and ants when we can get them. Likely to be much higher carbohydrate than what our newest carbophobe has in mind as ideal.
ok, i'm not wading into this, because i think it's silly. But let's just point out that hunting and the consumption of meat predates the human species. Our ape ancestors were carnivores. Homo sapiens have never been herbivores, or pure gatherers. We evolved the ability to walk on 2 feet specifically because it made us more successful hunters.
edit: and no, that shouldn't have any bearing at all on what we decide to eat in the 21st century. Sorry Paleoids
You realize we don't actually have ape ancestors, right?
Nakalipithecus disagrees
Per wikipedia:
"According to Kyoto University researchers, the Nakalipithecus species is very close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans."
"The evolutionary importance of Nakalipithecus is ... it provides evidence that current Homininae lineages (gorillas, chimpanzees, humans) diverged from a common ancestor"
Apes and humans evolved along separate evolutionary paths after the lines diverged from a common ancestor that was neither an ape nor a human. We are not descended from apes.
eta fix quotes
nice attempt.
But homo sapiens are literally part of the taxonomic family of primates called Hominidae. "great apes." And includes gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and....humans
Our ancestors are apes, because WE are apes.
I think what you might have been looking for is that our ancestors aren't monkeys. Which is the more common misunderstanding, and argument. But we are definitely descended from apes. Our parents are apes. We are apes.3 -
3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
A personal preference is one thing, but you wrote " I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans." If you're going to make statements like that, people are going to ask what the foundation is.
As far as "natural," it may or may not be. But we know that we reject many things that are "natural" and can be perfectly healthy and happy doing things that are "unnatural." It's an irrelevant category for health.
So when you say it isn't "healthy," what facts are you basing that on? I know you're not basing it on studies of vegetarians and vegans because those studies exist and overall they don't show that they have a higher rate of illness or early death than non-vegans and vegetarians.
Oh hey as for natural, long before we evolved to eat meat, we were all eating all plants, all the time.
If people want to go way, way back, why not go all way?
If you want to talk "natural" and go back in time, you're probably looking at a diet made up mostly of fruit and foraged greens, along with grubs and ants when we can get them. Likely to be much higher carbohydrate than what our newest carbophobe has in mind as ideal.
ok, i'm not wading into this, because i think it's silly. But let's just point out that hunting and the consumption of meat predates the human species. Our ape ancestors were carnivores. Homo sapiens have never been herbivores, or pure gatherers. We evolved the ability to walk on 2 feet specifically because it made us more successful hunters.
edit: and no, that shouldn't have any bearing at all on what we decide to eat in the 21st century. Sorry Paleoids
You realize we don't actually have ape ancestors, right?
Nakalipithecus disagrees
Per wikipedia:
"According to Kyoto University researchers, the Nakalipithecus species is very close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans."
"The evolutionary importance of Nakalipithecus is ... it provides evidence that current Homininae lineages (gorillas, chimpanzees, humans) diverged from a common ancestor"
Apes and humans evolved along separate evolutionary paths after the lines diverged from a common ancestor that was neither an ape nor a human. We are not descended from apes.
eta fix quotes
nice attempt.
But homo sapiens are literally part of the taxonomic family of primates called Hominidae. "great apes." And includes gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and....humans
Our ancestors are apes, because WE are apes.
I think what you might have been looking for is that our ancestors aren't monkeys. Which is the more common misunderstanding, and argument. But we are definitely descended from apes. Our parents are apes. We are apes.
......you got that from Starship Troopers, huh?
2 -
Motorsheen wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
A personal preference is one thing, but you wrote " I don't think a vegetarian lifestyle is healthy or natural for humans." If you're going to make statements like that, people are going to ask what the foundation is.
As far as "natural," it may or may not be. But we know that we reject many things that are "natural" and can be perfectly healthy and happy doing things that are "unnatural." It's an irrelevant category for health.
So when you say it isn't "healthy," what facts are you basing that on? I know you're not basing it on studies of vegetarians and vegans because those studies exist and overall they don't show that they have a higher rate of illness or early death than non-vegans and vegetarians.
Oh hey as for natural, long before we evolved to eat meat, we were all eating all plants, all the time.
If people want to go way, way back, why not go all way?
If you want to talk "natural" and go back in time, you're probably looking at a diet made up mostly of fruit and foraged greens, along with grubs and ants when we can get them. Likely to be much higher carbohydrate than what our newest carbophobe has in mind as ideal.
ok, i'm not wading into this, because i think it's silly. But let's just point out that hunting and the consumption of meat predates the human species. Our ape ancestors were carnivores. Homo sapiens have never been herbivores, or pure gatherers. We evolved the ability to walk on 2 feet specifically because it made us more successful hunters.
edit: and no, that shouldn't have any bearing at all on what we decide to eat in the 21st century. Sorry Paleoids
You realize we don't actually have ape ancestors, right?
Nakalipithecus disagrees
Per wikipedia:
"According to Kyoto University researchers, the Nakalipithecus species is very close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans."
"The evolutionary importance of Nakalipithecus is ... it provides evidence that current Homininae lineages (gorillas, chimpanzees, humans) diverged from a common ancestor"
Apes and humans evolved along separate evolutionary paths after the lines diverged from a common ancestor that was neither an ape nor a human. We are not descended from apes.
eta fix quotes
nice attempt.
But homo sapiens are literally part of the taxonomic family of primates called Hominidae. "great apes." And includes gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and....humans
Our ancestors are apes, because WE are apes.
I think what you might have been looking for is that our ancestors aren't monkeys. Which is the more common misunderstanding, and argument. But we are definitely descended from apes. Our parents are apes. We are apes.
......you got that from Starship Troopers, huh?
Not intentionally, maybe it rubbed off. My favorite book, by my favorite author, and an amazing (thought nearly completely unrelated) movie0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions