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?

1222223225227228358

Replies

  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,945 Member
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    drinking a diet coke right now, am I going to die or have a heart attack?

    Diet coke is garbage













    You should be drinking coke zero instead

    Nah, Coke No Sugar is where it's at. Does the US have that yet? We're now up to three sugar free Cokes in NZ, not counting caffeine-free, vanilla, etc. Ingredients in Zero and No Sugar exactly the same except for preservative (in the Zero). Somehow, the No Sugar is actually closer to real Coke (I think, really need to do side by side taste tests of all three). More sweetener maybe? Guess I will just die sooner...

    Coke Zero has officially been replaced by Coke Zero Sugar here.
    I was highly skeptical but believe it or not, they actually improved the taste and got even closer to actual Coke.

    They're replacing coke zero with the no sugar coke here in Australia.... I think the no sugar version is minging (because it tastes more like coke). Diet for me! (diet vanilla preferably - when I can find it!)

    They're phasing out Coke Zero apparently, but may have issues because Woolies is refusing to even stock the No Sugar one.

    Bahahahaha! But, why?

    And interesting that the US and Aus are phasing out Zero, and NZ is steadfastly going with having both. We do like to move to the beat of our own drum, though.

    Also, Google tells me I was right about No Sugar having more sweetener than Zero, hence why it's closer to Classic in taste.

    Woolies said that they have too many Coke products already and sales of Zero were fine and they basically told Coke to get stuffed. It's pretty funny.
  • mathjulz
    mathjulz Posts: 5,526 Member
    Andy10725 wrote: »
    I don't believe in diet version of drinks. It's just as bad if not more harmful. Putting that on food diary to attempt to keep cal count low is just fooling yourself. Same goes for sugar substitutes. Just man up and consume the real thing, it's not the end of the world.

    I have reactive hypoglycemia. The liquid sugar causes too extreme of an insulin response, leaving me with low blood sugar. One of my best friends has T2 diabetes.

    For either of us, the "real thing" would be very bad, and especially for her, the "end of the world" (or of her)
  • byustrongman
    byustrongman Posts: 74 Member
    Apparently this opinion might be unpopular but Coke Zero Sugar is the worst parts of coke zero and diet coke.

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    Andy10725 wrote: »
    Andy10725 wrote: »
    Andy10725 wrote: »
    Andy10725 wrote: »
    I don't believe in diet version of drinks. It's just as bad if not more harmful. Putting that on food diary to attempt to keep cal count low is just fooling yourself. Same goes for sugar substitutes. Just man up and consume the real thing, it's not the end of the world.

    How is it more harmful? Why can't I spend those calories on something else? Or do you not believe that they're actually 0 calorie and that the manufacturers are lying and getting away with it?
    Exactly the reason for my respond above. I believe the stuff you eat matters to the organ. Sure it's 0 cal, but if u have too much of it, what would happen to ur organs? We all enjoy a little junk here n there from time to time. But when u r consuming something bad and not being aware or alert of it, that'd be troublesome.

    You keep dancing around the question. WHAT is bad about it.
    Didn't dance around anything. My biggest concern with it is over-consuming it without knowing you are having too much of it compared with how you would react to regular counterpart.
    But to name other, diabetes, heart disease.

    There is no sugar in, wait for it, sugar free drinks so how on earth can it impact/cause/exacerbate or whatever, diabetes?

    Same goes for heart disease, where on earth have you seen a study that shows this link?

    There is no evidence (not fear mongering blogs or websites) to indicate there is anything wrong with the consumption of diet drinks and any potential issues (so far only observed in mice as far as I'm aware) would call for drinking amounts that would cause far worse problems long before the side effects of the diet drink kicked in.

    Oy vey.
    Here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-011-1968-2

    "We assessed diet and regular soft drink consumption using a food frequency questionnaire..."

    Those are not very reliable...

    That's putting it lightly.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."

    Are you assuming then that everyone is able to exercise and has a job?
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,932 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."

    you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.

    Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.

    Not so sure about this...
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."

    you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.

    Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.



    I tend to agree, which is blasphemy on a fitness forum. I'm not sure having different priorities is "an excuse". A person has right to their own priorities and it's silly to judge their priorities as "inferior" just because they aren't the same as someone else's. I also agree that exercise is not a requirement for health, and by that I mean purposeful exercise. I believe being active does affect health a lot, but it doesn't necessarily need to be exercise. I have seen living proof of it.

    My mom is in her 60s, and by her posture you would think she is in her 40s. She has a straight back, strong straight pulled back shoulders, great balance in her step, she stands tall and looks solid, she jumps from counter to counter like a monkey to clean and does garden work for hours in a deep squat position. She carries around 100 lb bags of firewood as if they're nothing and has more stamina to do anything than I ever will. She does no official exercise, but she has a job that requires some strength and muscle stamina and she's the kind of woman who won't stay still for more than a few minutes. At her age she has ZERO common age-related metabolic problems like blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure... etc. She isn't on any medications. I'm nearly half her age and even after years of working on it and normalizing all of my stats I can only dream of her blood work and blood pressure (110-80).

    You actually just described a series of exercise activities that your mom does consistently, which sound just as effective as a regimented program in a gym. In her case, prioritizing exercise is unnecessary - for those of us who get very little exercise at work or through hobbies, I think it is critical to set a few hours aside per week for it.

    And that is most of the US.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,577 Member
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Everyone can make time to be more active. Literally everyone. You don't have to set aside a specific block of time and grind it out on the treadmill if that's not your thing. You could walk/bike to work instead of driving. You could go for a walk on your lunch break instead of being sedentary. You could stand at your desk and do squats, for goodness sake. Lack of time is an excuse that really means "this isn't a priority for me."

    you are correct but sometimes you can't make it a priority to exercise...this whole "what's your excuse " BS is exactly that...BS...and this coming from someone who exercises a lot.

    Exercise is a choice and isn't required to lose weight...or be healthy even...it's a requirement to be fit.



    I tend to agree, which is blasphemy on a fitness forum. I'm not sure having different priorities is "an excuse". A person has right to their own priorities and it's silly to judge their priorities as "inferior" just because they aren't the same as someone else's. I also agree that exercise is not a requirement for health, and by that I mean purposeful exercise. I believe being active does affect health a lot, but it doesn't necessarily need to be exercise. I have seen living proof of it.

    My mom is in her 60s, and by her posture you would think she is in her 40s. She has a straight back, strong straight pulled back shoulders, great balance in her step, she stands tall and looks solid, she jumps from counter to counter like a monkey to clean and does garden work for hours in a deep squat position. She carries around 100 lb bags of firewood as if they're nothing and has more stamina to do anything than I ever will. She does no official exercise, but she has a job that requires some strength and muscle stamina and she's the kind of woman who won't stay still for more than a few minutes. At her age she has ZERO common age-related metabolic problems like blood sugar, cholesterol, blood pressure... etc. She isn't on any medications. I'm nearly half her age and even after years of working on it and normalizing all of my stats I can only dream of her blood work and blood pressure (110-80).

    You actually just described a series of exercise activities that your mom does consistently, which sound just as effective as a regimented program in a gym. In her case, prioritizing exercise is unnecessary - for those of us who get very little exercise at work or through hobbies, I think it is critical to set a few hours aside per week for it.

    Exactly. The post didn't say "intentional exercise" or exercise for the sake of exercise/fitness.

    And if it had it would still be incorrect as it's quite possible to be fit if you live an active life even if you never do "intentional exercise".
This discussion has been closed.