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
-
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .!
Those genes are likely no longer in the pool. Vacuum hose accidents can do that.
But that's the point: If there are warnings, and those people read/heed them . . . yikes to the gene pool!4 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
I have to ask - didn't he get along ok on his remaining two?
Just kidding, I know what you meant2 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .!
Those genes are likely no longer in the pool. Vacuum hose accidents can do that.
It's a Darwin Award where you don't have to die. We live in kinder, gentler times.
9 -
It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .!
Those genes are likely no longer in the pool. Vacuum hose accidents can do that.
But that's the point: If there are warnings, and those people read/heed them . . . yikes to the gene pool!
19 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »It challenges my imagination to believe that evolution designed us to do best with any complicated, arcane, meticulous, analytically-compulsive way of eating.
P,S. Despite the timing, this opinion has zip-zero-nada to do with soda of any kind, or the lack thereof. In fact, personally, frankly, I'm tired of the soda discussion.
We are evolved to survive long enough to procreate and raise our children to do likewise under conditions of food scarcity, hard physical demand, and high disease.
Science and technological advances are mucking up evolutionary balances. I can't really see this as bad.
I don't necessarily see that as bad, either. Science & technology are, in a sense, evolutionary pressures we ourselves have created.
I'm a little concerned about the effect of product liability law on population intelligence over time, though. (<=== This part is a joke. Sort of. )
This one keeps me up at night. We previously by default eliminated the lowest common denominator through life. Implementation of hot coffee warnings, safety caps, seat belt laws, etc. spells certain doom for the human race.
Not so much those, but ones like the lawnmower with a warning not to use it as a hedge trimmer, or the vacuum cleaner warning that it shouldn't be used to vacuum up burning materials. Lawyers don't think up warnings like that on a purely theoretical basis: Someone, somewhere, has done it and sued.
A high school classmate of my mom's lost his third leg to a vacuum cleaner hose. I'm pretty sure he's the reason they say not to put body parts in the hose. Think of the lifelong misery a warning label saves!
But the gene pool . . .!
Those genes are likely no longer in the pool. Vacuum hose accidents can do that.
But that's the point: If there are warnings, and those people read/heed them . . . yikes to the gene pool!
you sound like my husband...he says this all the time.0 -
[
0 -
0
-
2
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4866646/It-s-not-eat-s-eat-matters.html
My unpopular opinion is that this article and "Study" is a load of *kitten*
I always eat before bed.
It all boils down to metabolism, giving the body enough time to digest.
However, while the internet is full of specific plans for dieters saying what time of day to eat, none of those take into account how it could be affected by different schedules.
Our metabolism is affected by our circadian rhythm (i.e. body clock). For some, our body clock is the standard night-day. But for others who work night shifts or burn the candles at both ends, it is not so simple.
Now, researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital have conducted the first study showing how meal times affect your weight gain, depending on what time you rise and sleep.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4866646/It-s-not-eat-s-eat-matters.html#ixzz4sDAgPNmR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook1 -
Simple. CICO is not the whole picture. Content and quality of the calories in makes a difference.
Gary Taubes is no longer viewed as a quack.
Personally, I don't hold to 4:1 carbs to protein for workout. That may be useful for some but not for everyone. We don't all metabolize carbs the same way.39 -
Simple. CICO is not the whole picture. Content and quality of the calories in makes a difference.
Gary Taubes is no longer viewed as a quack.
Personally, I don't hold to 4:1 carbs to protein for workout. That may be useful for some but not for everyone. We don't all metabolize carbs the same way.
But, yes, Taubes is still viewed as a quack by anyone well read and informed.
17 -
Simple. CICO is not the whole picture. Content and quality of the calories in makes a difference.
Gary Taubes is no longer viewed as a quack.
Personally, I don't hold to 4:1 carbs to protein for workout. That may be useful for some but not for everyone. We don't all metabolize carbs the same way.
That definitely qualifies as an unpopular opinion IMO. Taubes is an ever bigger quack than Dr. Oz and MercoLOLa combined. Right up there with David "Avocado" Wolfe, who claims that gravity is a toxin.
Taubes isn't even a researcher - he's an author, his degree is in journalism. And he makes big bucks writing books about crap science and trying to convince people that his debunked woo is anything but that.17 -
Simple. CICO is not the whole picture. Content and quality of the calories in makes a difference.
Gary Taubes is no longer viewed as a quack.
Personally, I don't hold to 4:1 carbs to protein for workout. That may be useful for some but not for everyone. We don't all metabolize carbs the same way.
Who recommends 4:1 carbs to protein for workouts? I don't believe I've ever seen that.
I've seen it recommended for refueling after a workout, especially cardio-related workouts. The idea is that it helps recovery and filling glycogen stores more quickly, which can be relevant if one is working out twice a day (it was a recommendation especially for that when I was doing a half-ironman/ironman training group).
Pre workout, no, haven't seen it. And most on MFP say it rarely matters unless one has specific reasons for it.And CICO is not the whole picture for what? I've never seen that said either. For weight loss it is. For nutrition and body composition it's not. I've never seen anyone claim it was. Do you have a source for these claims?
Yup.
Taubes is considered a quack not because he says nutrition matters (which of course most of us do), but because he claims that you can't get fat on a low carb diet, and can on a diet at or below TDEE if high carb. Essentially he seems to think calories are not what matter for weight loss/gain.8 -
Taubes's hypothesis on the cause of obesity was falsified in controlled conditions. Twice.
Taubes also conflates "how" and "why" (his infamous movie theater entry scenario) and those two questions 1) aren't the same thing and 2) have different answers and 3) in the case of "why" doesn't have the same answer for every individual.
Taubes thinking that "why" and "how" are the same thing, or rather, that "why" negates the fact that "how" is indeed taking place represents a basic misunderstanding of human physiology and logical failing on his part and as well as a failure to entertain complex thinking that would show he's interested in truly finding answers and not just selling books and peddling nonsense.14 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Taubes's hypothesis on the cause of obesity was falsified in controlled conditions. Twice.
Taubes also conflates "how" and "why" (his infamous movie theater entry scenario) and those two questions 1) aren't the same thing and 2) have different answers and 3) in the case of "why" doesn't have the same answer for every individual.
Taubes thinking that "why" and "how" are the same thing, or rather, that "why" negates the fact that "how" is indeed taking place represents a basic misunderstanding of human physiology and logical failing on his part and as well as a failure to entertain complex thinking that would show he's interested in truly finding answers and not just selling books and peddling nonsense.
Taubes' own research institute (NuSi) has done research which resulted in findings contrary to his theories. He has flat out said that even if there was conclusive scientific research which disproved his theories (which there is), he wouldn't change his mind. That doesn't sound like a researcher, that sounds like a crackpot with an agenda - which is exactly what Taubes is.14 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Taubes's hypothesis on the cause of obesity was falsified in controlled conditions. Twice.
Taubes also conflates "how" and "why" (his infamous movie theater entry scenario) and those two questions 1) aren't the same thing and 2) have different answers and 3) in the case of "why" doesn't have the same answer for every individual.
Taubes thinking that "why" and "how" are the same thing, or rather, that "why" negates the fact that "how" is indeed taking place represents a basic misunderstanding of human physiology and logical failing on his part and as well as a failure to entertain complex thinking that would show he's interested in truly finding answers and not just selling books and peddling nonsense.
Taubes' own research institute (NuSi) has done research which resulted in findings contrary to his theories. He has flat out said that even if there was conclusive scientific research which disproved his theories (which there is), he wouldn't change his mind. That doesn't sound like a researcher, that sounds like a crackpot with an agenda - which is exactly what Taubes is.
NuSi funding the research is my favorite part of the whole story.5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
DATES. Weakness for me, omg. I have no limits.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Taubes's hypothesis on the cause of obesity was falsified in controlled conditions. Twice.
Taubes also conflates "how" and "why" (his infamous movie theater entry scenario) and those two questions 1) aren't the same thing and 2) have different answers and 3) in the case of "why" doesn't have the same answer for every individual.
Taubes thinking that "why" and "how" are the same thing, or rather, that "why" negates the fact that "how" is indeed taking place represents a basic misunderstanding of human physiology and logical failing on his part and as well as a failure to entertain complex thinking that would show he's interested in truly finding answers and not just selling books and peddling nonsense.
Taubes' own research institute (NuSi) has done research which resulted in findings contrary to his theories. He has flat out said that even if there was conclusive scientific research which disproved his theories (which there is), he wouldn't change his mind. That doesn't sound like a researcher, that sounds like a crackpot with an agenda - which is exactly what Taubes is.
Off topic, but I see this and think sodium silicide. Which isn't even right because sodium is Na.3 -
SandraNancy 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.
Personally I don't go for the all or nothing mentality. As life changes so do one's priorities. I believe in keeping a top 5 list. The top 5 may change their order but they will generally be up there...
I don't either...and I think that priorities are a fluid thing as well.
Mine change...I used to garden a lot and pickle..it was a priority...not so much now...top 10 but eh.
Exercise top 5...but it might slip down the list it would depend on the circumstance
What you put time into is where your true priorities can be found...3 -
SandraNancy 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.
Personally I don't go for the all or nothing mentality. As life changes so do one's priorities. I believe in keeping a top 5 list. The top 5 may change their order but they will generally be up there...
I don't either...and I think that priorities are a fluid thing as well.
Mine change...I used to garden a lot and pickle..it was a priority...not so much now...top 10 but eh.
Exercise top 5...but it might slip down the list it would depend on the circumstance
What you put time into is where your true priorities can be found...
okay...but not so much.
example highest priority for me is to spend time with my husband...but with his work schedule I don't get the time...but when I do it's devoted to him....(he works 12 hour shifts and a lot of OT)1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions