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
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The claim that people are celebrating/defending "cake culture" is a false dichotomy.
Several of us commented on the fact that we like cake (or pie if you prefer) but no one is saying "Yay! Cake culture is the best!"
What we are actually doing is debating:
1) The existence of a legitimate "cake culture"
2) The prevalence of "cake culture" if it is a real thing
3) Whether cake and/or other treats in the office are actually significant contributors to obesity
Oh, and here I was thinking the thread was just to express opinions. Maybe there should be a separate thread to debate those three items? My take would be 1) yes, 2) fairly common, and 3) needs further research because it is calorific snacking combined with inactivity for long portions of the day.
This thread is also in the Debate forum. You expressed an unpopular opinion about "cake culture." Now we're debating it. To say that our debating your opinion is the same as "defending cake culture" is false.
Cake culture denialism at it's finest.
Which apparently counts as supporting it...
I guess since I deny that "cake culture" is a real thing, I must be the high priest of cake culturism.
It's like saying that I don't believe in gremlins and everybody saying "Yup, told him gremlins are bad and he denied it. He's pro-gremlin."10 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The claim that people are celebrating/defending "cake culture" is a false dichotomy.
Several of us commented on the fact that we like cake (or pie if you prefer) but no one is saying "Yay! Cake culture is the best!"
What we are actually doing is debating:
1) The existence of a legitimate "cake culture"
2) The prevalence of "cake culture" if it is a real thing
3) Whether cake and/or other treats in the office are actually significant contributors to obesity
Oh, and here I was thinking the thread was just to express opinions. Maybe there should be a separate thread to debate those three items? My take would be 1) yes, 2) fairly common, and 3) needs further research because it is calorific snacking combined with inactivity for long portions of the day.
This thread is also in the Debate forum. You expressed an unpopular opinion about "cake culture." Now we're debating it. To say that our debating your opinion is the same as "defending cake culture" is false.
Cake culture denialism at it's finest.
Which apparently counts as supporting it...
I guess since I deny that "cake culture" is a real thing, I must be the high priest of cake culturism.
It's like saying that I don't believe in gremlins and everybody saying "Yup, told him gremlins are bad and he denied it. He's pro-gremlin."
Oh Carlos. How do you not believe in cake culture or gremlins or zombies? Your world is void of evils. Or perhaps your evils are more real than imagined
5 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The claim that people are celebrating/defending "cake culture" is a false dichotomy.
Several of us commented on the fact that we like cake (or pie if you prefer) but no one is saying "Yay! Cake culture is the best!"
What we are actually doing is debating:
1) The existence of a legitimate "cake culture"
2) The prevalence of "cake culture" if it is a real thing
3) Whether cake and/or other treats in the office are actually significant contributors to obesity
Oh, and here I was thinking the thread was just to express opinions. Maybe there should be a separate thread to debate those three items? My take would be 1) yes, 2) fairly common, and 3) needs further research because it is calorific snacking combined with inactivity for long portions of the day.
This thread is also in the Debate forum. You expressed an unpopular opinion about "cake culture." Now we're debating it. To say that our debating your opinion is the same as "defending cake culture" is false.
Cake culture denialism at it's finest.
Which apparently counts as supporting it...
I guess since I deny that "cake culture" is a real thing, I must be the high priest of cake culturism.
It's like saying that I don't believe in gremlins and everybody saying "Yup, told him gremlins are bad and he denied it. He's pro-gremlin."
Oh Carlos. How do you not believe in cake culture or gremlins or zombies? Your world is void of evils. Or perhaps your evils are more real than imagined
It's the bold in a way. When there so many legitimate things in life that need to be addressed, I'm hardly concerned with whether or not Bill in IT is too fat for his coworkers to be bringing in snacks to celebrate his promotion. Bill's a grown man who can make his own choices. He doesn't need the company or his coworkers to decide what he should or shouldn't eat.16 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The claim that people are celebrating/defending "cake culture" is a false dichotomy.
Several of us commented on the fact that we like cake (or pie if you prefer) but no one is saying "Yay! Cake culture is the best!"
What we are actually doing is debating:
1) The existence of a legitimate "cake culture"
2) The prevalence of "cake culture" if it is a real thing
3) Whether cake and/or other treats in the office are actually significant contributors to obesity
Oh, and here I was thinking the thread was just to express opinions. Maybe there should be a separate thread to debate those three items? My take would be 1) yes, 2) fairly common, and 3) needs further research because it is calorific snacking combined with inactivity for long portions of the day.
This thread is also in the Debate forum. You expressed an unpopular opinion about "cake culture." Now we're debating it. To say that our debating your opinion is the same as "defending cake culture" is false.
Cake culture denialism at it's finest.
Which apparently counts as supporting it...
I guess since I deny that "cake culture" is a real thing, I must be the high priest of cake culturism.
It's like saying that I don't believe in gremlins and everybody saying "Yup, told him gremlins are bad and he denied it. He's pro-gremlin."
Oh Carlos. How do you not believe in cake culture or gremlins or zombies? Your world is void of evils. Or perhaps your evils are more real than imagined
It's the bold in a way. When there so many legitimate things in life that need to be addressed, I'm hardly concerned with whether or not Bill in IT is too fat for his coworkers to be bringing in snacks to celebrate his promotion. Bill's a grown man who can make his own choices. He doesn't need the company or his coworkers to decide what he should or shouldn't eat.
I'm with you. Much bigger fish to fry in this world.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The claim that people are celebrating/defending "cake culture" is a false dichotomy.
Several of us commented on the fact that we like cake (or pie if you prefer) but no one is saying "Yay! Cake culture is the best!"
What we are actually doing is debating:
1) The existence of a legitimate "cake culture"
2) The prevalence of "cake culture" if it is a real thing
3) Whether cake and/or other treats in the office are actually significant contributors to obesity
Oh, and here I was thinking the thread was just to express opinions. Maybe there should be a separate thread to debate those three items? My take would be 1) yes, 2) fairly common, and 3) needs further research because it is calorific snacking combined with inactivity for long portions of the day.
This thread is also in the Debate forum. You expressed an unpopular opinion about "cake culture." Now we're debating it. To say that our debating your opinion is the same as "defending cake culture" is false.
Cake culture denialism at it's finest.
Which apparently counts as supporting it...
I guess since I deny that "cake culture" is a real thing, I must be the high priest of cake culturism.
It's like saying that I don't believe in gremlins and everybody saying "Yup, told him gremlins are bad and he denied it. He's pro-gremlin."
Oh Carlos. How do you not believe in cake culture or gremlins or zombies? Your world is void of evils. Or perhaps your evils are more real than imagined
It's the bold in a way. When there so many legitimate things in life that need to be addressed, I'm hardly concerned with whether or not Bill in IT is too fat for his coworkers to be bringing in snacks to celebrate his promotion. Bill's a grown man who can make his own choices. He doesn't need the company or his coworkers to decide what he should or shouldn't eat.
It's not the cake that made Bill fat anyways. Its genetics. Or his slow metabolism. CICO definitely doesn't apply to Bill. I think I've seen Bill posting in the forums before.13 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The claim that people are celebrating/defending "cake culture" is a false dichotomy.
Several of us commented on the fact that we like cake (or pie if you prefer) but no one is saying "Yay! Cake culture is the best!"
What we are actually doing is debating:
1) The existence of a legitimate "cake culture"
2) The prevalence of "cake culture" if it is a real thing
3) Whether cake and/or other treats in the office are actually significant contributors to obesity
Oh, and here I was thinking the thread was just to express opinions. Maybe there should be a separate thread to debate those three items? My take would be 1) yes, 2) fairly common, and 3) needs further research because it is calorific snacking combined with inactivity for long portions of the day.
This thread is also in the Debate forum. You expressed an unpopular opinion about "cake culture." Now we're debating it. To say that our debating your opinion is the same as "defending cake culture" is false.
Cake culture denialism at it's finest.
Which apparently counts as supporting it...
I guess since I deny that "cake culture" is a real thing, I must be the high priest of cake culturism.
It's like saying that I don't believe in gremlins and everybody saying "Yup, told him gremlins are bad and he denied it. He's pro-gremlin."
Oh Carlos. How do you not believe in cake culture or gremlins or zombies? Your world is void of evils. Or perhaps your evils are more real than imagined
It's the bold in a way. When there so many legitimate things in life that need to be addressed, I'm hardly concerned with whether or not Bill in IT is too fat for his coworkers to be bringing in snacks to celebrate his promotion. Bill's a grown man who can make his own choices. He doesn't need the company or his coworkers to decide what he should or shouldn't eat.
It's not the cake that made Bill fat anyways. Its genetics. Or his slow metabolism. CICO definitely doesn't apply to Bill. I think I've seen Bill posting in the forums before.
Bill ate too much gluten and not enough ACV.11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »
And that is all because a certain % of the population make personal choices that are destructive. Lot's don't. These things are amoral. They have no ability to make choices or make people do things by their existence.Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »VioletRojo wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...
I think what is being denied is that Cake Culture is a bad thing.
Or that "Cake Culture" (seriously?... ok...) is responsible for obesity.
I don't think that It is responsible for obesity - but for a lot of people, it enables and perpetuates obesity.
I respectfully disagree. It doesn't "do" anything. It's just an inanimate food object. Peoples choices enable and perpetuate obesity. If you are obese, you know you should not be overindulging in cake.
Once someone is obese, they probably have insulin sensitivity issues that help keep them obese. But, cake doesn't enable and perpetuate anything. It's just a kind of food. We have all kinds of foods around us every day everywhere we go. It's all about people making choices.
Yes food is an inanimate object, as are cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. And yet millions of people are overweight, smoke, are alcoholics, and are drug addicts - tell them to knock it off.
Peer pressure and the need for social acceptance play an enormous role in addiction. I don’t find the value in stuffing my face with cake with obese people or doing shots at the bar with alcoholics, even though I am not obese and not an alcoholic. There are social events that can further relationship building without perpetuating destructive habits.
As to the 2nd bolded line, I'd say that depends on the event. If were talking about someone bringing baked goods into work, I think the "cake culture" analogy has been drawn to a ridiculous extreme if it is called "destructive habits". Destructive for whom? Are we really attempting to reduce what has happened with obesity over the last 75 years to people bringing cake into the office. Absurd really.
Totally missing my point. If people want to eat cake until they literally explode at work every day they are perfectly free to do that. If an alcoholic wants to drown himself in vodka that is his business. You can smoke until your lungs are two lumps of charred coal, have at it. I just don’t care to perpetuate it or glorify it.
What's your solution?
You're on a very slippery slope here.
What social gathering is the threshold wherein these things start becoming allowed vs. these things should not be allowed so as not to "perpetuate or glorify? obesity (as if they are doing that in the first place, you have a narrow view of what causes obesity if you think one isolated food at one isolated gathering is the problem).
Holy strawman, Batman8 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »The claim that people are celebrating/defending "cake culture" is a false dichotomy.
Several of us commented on the fact that we like cake (or pie if you prefer) but no one is saying "Yay! Cake culture is the best!"
What we are actually doing is debating:
1) The existence of a legitimate "cake culture"
2) The prevalence of "cake culture" if it is a real thing
3) Whether cake and/or other treats in the office are actually significant contributors to obesity
Oh, and here I was thinking the thread was just to express opinions. Maybe there should be a separate thread to debate those three items? My take would be 1) yes, 2) fairly common, and 3) needs further research because it is calorific snacking combined with inactivity for long portions of the day.
This thread is also in the Debate forum. You expressed an unpopular opinion about "cake culture." Now we're debating it. To say that our debating your opinion is the same as "defending cake culture" is false.
Cake culture denialism at it's finest.
Which apparently counts as supporting it...
I guess since I deny that "cake culture" is a real thing, I must be the high priest of cake culturism.
It's like saying that I don't believe in gremlins and everybody saying "Yup, told him gremlins are bad and he denied it. He's pro-gremlin."
Oh Carlos. How do you not believe in cake culture or gremlins or zombies? Your world is void of evils. Or perhaps your evils are more real than imagined
It's the bold in a way. When there so many legitimate things in life that need to be addressed, I'm hardly concerned with whether or not Bill in IT is too fat for his coworkers to be bringing in snacks to celebrate his promotion. Bill's a grown man who can make his own choices. He doesn't need the company or his coworkers to decide what he should or shouldn't eat.
It's not the cake that made Bill fat anyways. Its genetics. Or his slow metabolism. CICO definitely doesn't apply to Bill. I think I've seen Bill posting in the forums before.
He is eating too few calories, hence all the weight he has gained. Starvation mode, ya know.
Important Disclosure. Please Read. This is sarcasm.7 -
ZOMG Zombies?0
-
annaskiski wrote: »ZOMG Zombies?
And if you deny their existence, you are pro zombie.3 -
if "cake culture" was so prevalent - I would expect some anthropology, sociology, psychological type entity to have done some kind of study on it but see nada in google scholar (an article in a newspaper does not count unless its linked to a peer reviewed journal)4
-
deannalfisher wrote: »if "cake culture" was so prevalent - I would expect some anthropology, sociology, psychological type entity to have done some kind of study on it but see nada in google scholar (an article in a newspaper does not count unless its linked to a peer reviewed journal)
Why do I get the feeling Michael Moore will not be doing a documentary on this?8 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
I'll stick with my strong heart and plentiful food from weightlifting and HIIT. More bang for the buck.
Not in my experience. Can't sustain HIIT long enough to burn any meaningful amount of calories, and whatever I burn I eat back twofold or more because it increases my hunger substantially. Now don't get me wrong, no one has to do cardio (or weight lifting, or HIIT for that matter), but you can't call any form of exercise a waste of time because there are clear benefits to being active, health and otherwise.
Yes, sitting on your *kitten* is a much greater waste of time.
Since I don't like exercising in general, I'm going to spend the least amount of time possible to get the greatest benefit which means high intensity. I just want to get it over with so I can get back to thing I enjoy.
And that's totally alright! It's just, this sounds more like preference than opinion.
Nah, I still am not a fan of cardio(but it's better than nothing). I believe there are much greater benefits from high intensity exercise.
How do you know you don't burn as much calories doing HIIT? I believe that much shorter, high intensity exercise may not burn as much at the time, but the residual calorie burn from greater muscle stimulation lasts much longer resulting in more CO.
EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consunption) for HIIT is 14%, for Low Impact Steady State it's 7%. That's the % of residual burn of calories burned during. FWIW. HIIT can't be done for very long so the overall burn is not that big. If you could do 30 minutes of HIIT, your Butner with EPOCH would be about the same as 60 minutes of LISS but who can do 30 minutes of HIIT??
This would depend on the intensity of the HIIT. And as @GottaBurnEmAll stated not all "HIIT" is equal. To me, HIIT means the intervals are 100% all out.
That is the HIIT I'm talking about and in exercise physiology circle based on studies, that is the commonly accepted number. This was discussed in detail on the Lyle McDonald article sjomial linked to. It is also the number Dr. Brad Shoenfeld uses. It pretty objective and not really the subject of much speculation as to variance.
Less that 100% all out would not technically be HIIT but would be considered interval training. The EPOC would fall somewhere between LISS and HIIT depending on intensity. All HIIT is not equal because the Marketing woo machines call everything HIIT today. Things like 1 hours HIIT classes. If you can do it for 1 hour, it ain't HIIT!!
PS: The link sjomial gave is the 2nd in a series of in depth article about the subject and references a lot of the current research. If that is the link you are kind of dismissive of in one of your posts above, I suggest you didn't read it thoroughly. There are links to both the initial article in the series and the following ones at the bottom of the one posted.
I did read it, but I'll look at the references too. My main leaning to HIIT over cardio is that it is closer to weightlifting in it's muscle building potential... if I am not mistaken. However, I pretty much just lift and try to stay away from all that gross running stuff...
The studies that showed muscle building improvements were done with untrained subjects. In someone like you are me doing weight training that has not been demonstrated. In a trained individual, the benefit is primarily increase in VO2 max. HIIT in trained subjects provides cardio benefit.
If you read the series of articles, he covers all of this.
Ah..
So, I understand how HIIT would not improve muscle building in someone who lifts. But wouldn't it build muscle in someone who typically only does cardio (steady state)?
Possibly, I don't know. It wasn't one of the scenarios addressed.
It should. Think of HIIT (or any cardio workout) as a VERY long weightlifting set using VERY light weights. For example, if you're riding a bicycle for an hour and keep an average cadence of 80 rpm on the pedals you've just done 4,800 repetitions. That'll build muscle.
I think anything that creates overload will cause some muscle growth if nutritional conditions are right. But, as I said, in the sources I read, it was not addressed. Sadly, many of the studies on HIIT seem to have been done on college campuses utilizing untrained students and the subjects. In Lyle McDonalds articles, he talks about this and how it confounds much of the results.
Obviously, if someone is working, say legs, a couple of times in the gym per week, running or bike riding is not likely to cause lots of muscle development. I can't say it wouldn't cause any though as the act of running or riding is slightly different than weight lifting. So, I'm sure there would be some muscular adaptation that would take place. Whether that would result in hypertrophy though may be questionable. More likely neuromuscular recruitment adaptations.
I'm not going to argue hard for hypertrophy, because I really don't know, but as an n=1, I did lose a couple of clothing sizes over a period of a few years at roughly the same body weight from something most people consider cardio (rowing, mostly boats, some machines), with negligible ancillary strength training. I don't know that NM adaptations can account for size reduction, unless "toning" really is a thing after all (heh).
This really represents a lot of reps (4000-5000 weekly, often, maybe more), with some small workload progressivity via technical improvements along the way.
Clearly, a well designed progressive weight training program would produce similar results much faster, with less workout time investment . . . but, for me, less fun. I'm not well-muscled like the lifting women around here, especially not in a well-rounded, balanced way . . . but neither am I stick-like. IMO only, of course.
A couple of questions for you Ann; were you in a trained and fit state when you started? Could the reduction in clothing sizes have been from BF loss? Muscle gain (hypertrophy) would cause size increases in a lean individual. But in an individual with high to average body fat, not so much and fat loss with weight staying the same would result in size reduction. Eg. the oft referred to recomp.
I've seen your profile pic. Good muscle development!
Definitely in an untrained state to start - depleted even (chemotherapy, other life challenges) . Certainly there was fat loss - a fair bit. But if weight stays the same, something of equivalent weight was gained. Not just water, I think. That'd be a lot of water, over quite a time scale. Fat loss alone, with no compensating gain elsewhere, would mean lower body weight.
Recomp is fat loss with muscle gain, resulting in smaller body size at the same weight, because muscle is more compact than fat pound for pound . . . as I understand it.
And thank you.
Essentially, yes. And that is what I believe happened to you. Especially given that you started in an untrained state.
In the HIIT studies, that is what happened with untrained subjects. The gained muscle mass. So, the wrong conclusion was jumped to that HIIT universally causes muscle mass growth. McDonald's contention is that in untrained individuals, yes. In trained individuals, "no _____ way" is the how he expressed it.
Just as a minor point of clarification: Rowing is not mostly HIIT. In fact it's rarely HIIT - HIIT workouts are typically used as you'd expect: As a fraction of the workouts leading to a key competition, presumably to move VO2 max. Most of rowing (especially at my level) is LISS or regular intervals.
But yes, what you say is what I think happened: Newbie gains and recomp . . . from "cardio", mostly LISS and regular intervals. It's a strength endurance sport.
Another n=1 anecdote: Elite rowers weight train extensively, of course, and do
absurd volumes of cardiovascular work, mostly rowing (boat, machine) but also some cardio cross-training such as running or biking. On water, there are two types of rowing: Sculling, two oars per person, so laterally symmetric; and sweep, one oar per person so laterally asymmetric. Many sweep rowers specialize in a particular side, starboard or port. A former member of my rowing club had been a competitive collegiate, then US national team, rower. After her rowing career, one of her (non-sports specialist) doctors asked her if she knew that her muscular development was asymmetric - more muscle development on the side she most rowed with. (Of course she did.) Trained individual, effect of very high volume "cardio".
Yup, rowing is not HIIT pretty much any exercise from an untrained state is going to cause muscle development and cause certain hormonal fat burning adaptations. HIIT causes that to happen faster initially but LISS will cause it to happen also over a longer time frame.
I think rowing has a much more intense resistance component to it than biking or running. I'm not a spectacular runner but there are times I can get in the right rhythm with my stride and breathing that it feels fairly effortless. It's just a matter of how long my legs can go until they are past their point of conditioning and the energy runs out. Maybe once you get the muscles condition rowing is like that also? But I'm guessing getting in good rowing shape takes some work.
A peculiar thing about rowing is that you can increase your effort for quite a long time, essentially increasing the workload per stroke (you also increase your strokes per minute if your technique and conditioning allow). Doing so makes you go faster. You can keep getting faster (diminishing returns of course) until you age out or injure out, maybe. Strength improvements facilitate this, of course, but technique improvements also do so in ways that might not be superficially obvious. If it ever gets to feel effortless, other than by applying less effort, I haven't come close to finding that point.
When you see very skilled rowers race, it can look almost effortless. It isn't. Races are essentially two anaerobic sprints with varying amounts of AT in between. Watch what elite crews do after the finish line; collapse is not unusual.So, it would not surprise me that there would be muscular development at the very least and building of muscle mass in an untrained subject.
On the subject of cross training, most elite athletes have resistance training as part of their regimen. There is just no downside to it. My lifting helps my running or biking immensely and I am not even close to elite level. They would need to just to stay competitive. Do elite rowers use HIIT either before big meets or going into the season to get V02 max improvements for the most serious competitions?
I don't know details of training planning at the national team level. Based on my experience with friends and coaches of mine who coach at the collegiate level, as well having pursued coaching certification myself via education & training led by such folks, collegiate coaches at major programs use periodized training plans that include a component of high intensity work as part of prep for the most important competition(s). The training plans include quite a few variations in intensity and duration of workouts to train various capabilities, with the emphasis shifting at different times during the season in a series of macrocycles and microcycles. There's a parallel strength track, technique work (often as a component of LISS or interval workouts), and attention to nutrition.
Thanks Ann. Fascinating stuff! BTW, Philly is a great rowing city. During prime season there is always lots of activity down on Boathouse Row.
Yes. Boathouse Row is especially beautiful at night with holiday lights, not that it needs to be any more scenic than it is routinely. I've been there a number of times to watch my favorite University compete, and even have visited some boathouses, but have never had the pleasure of rowing on the Schuylkill. (I live in Michigan, which has some beautiful places to row, but not much rowing tradition. My city's "boathouse row" consists of 3 big pole barns for 3 rowing organizations. Nice river, though.)
Boston, another frequent competition site, also has some beautiful boathouses, some with long history. I've rowed there a number of times, including a couple of times on the Charles River basin after dark . . . stunning view of the city - the best.
P.S. Rowing has greatly enhanced my life, in so many ways.
Oops, sorry - none of this has much to do with unpopular opinions, even though rowing is great for health & fitness.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »work_on_it wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »But only if it's good cake.
That's my prob with cake culture... it's so rarely the good cake.
But guarantee it will get eaten, even if it's *kitten* cake, while the fresh fruit will be barely touched.
I guess I really live in a weird part of the country, or work in a field with a lot of weird peeps.
We get a huge box of fruit from our Peapod delivery service every week, one for every floor. The fruit is very popular and def gets eaten. Even stuff that you would think would be hard to share, like large cantaloupes and other melons.
But someone always cuts one up and puts it on the counter. Gone in a few hours...
This is what cake culture could become if it got a healthy makeover. I have no issues with bonding over food at work, I just have the opinion that it's not nice to offer people unhealthy foods and then get all offended if they refuse to eat it. Far nicer to offer a person something that is good for them as well as being yummy.
People keep talking about people getting offended when you refuse their food. I've refused a lot of food in my time on this earth and I've never, not once, had anyone get/act offended that I graciously refused their offer.
Yeah, this. And I have never enjoyed cake or donuts, so I have refused a lot of workplace treats in my time. I smile, thank them for offering and say I don't feel like a donut now but maybe next time. That way, everyone is happy and when they bring in delicious oatmeal cookies (something I always have trouble refusing) I happily accept one!4 -
What's next? Cake free zones? Where is the personal accountability for one's own actions? If you want to move forward you have to stop blaming others for your situation...
who's saying cake should be banned from work?
It's a huge leap to say "I wish people wouldn't try to pressure coworkers into eating junkfood" is somehow akin to "junk food should be banned!"
Seems to be an underlying "tone"...
people bemoaning a specific cultural norm is the remotely the same as wanting to ban that norm. I would be quite surprised if you could find very many people who thought people should be banned from bringing treats to the office.
They are already banned in many schools. How big of a leap is it to start hearing of them banned in workplaces?4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »if "cake culture" was so prevalent - I would expect some anthropology, sociology, psychological type entity to have done some kind of study on it but see nada in google scholar (an article in a newspaper does not count unless its linked to a peer reviewed journal)
Why do I get the feeling Michael Moore will not be doing a documentary on this?
I'm actually surprised that one of the junk science derpers like Mercola, Taubes, Lustig or Fung hasn't jumped on it yet.4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »if "cake culture" was so prevalent - I would expect some anthropology, sociology, psychological type entity to have done some kind of study on it but see nada in google scholar (an article in a newspaper does not count unless its linked to a peer reviewed journal)
Why do I get the feeling Michael Moore will not be doing a documentary on this?
Because it would be a memoir?8 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »if "cake culture" was so prevalent - I would expect some anthropology, sociology, psychological type entity to have done some kind of study on it but see nada in google scholar (an article in a newspaper does not count unless its linked to a peer reviewed journal)
Why do I get the feeling Michael Moore will not be doing a documentary on this?
Because it would be a memoir?
Snort.
I tell you what though, I deserve a medal for reading about cake for two days now and not going and getting some. Because you guyz are some hardcore cake pushers, you should be ashamed of your enabling behaviour giving no regard for me losing weight.17 -
Cake and treats in the office, "cake culture," is a SYMPTOM of a wider societal ignorance and lack of concern for health and fitness.
If this were true, then why has it existed for hundreds of years (even millenia)? The sharing of food in a group setting is almost as old as the group settings themselves. Move to a new home, neighbors bring treats (used to be bread and salt hundreds of years ago). Have a death in the family, people bring food (casseroles and treats). Have a meeting at church, people bring treats. Have a new baby, people bring food. The evolution of the workplace from just a place to work to a place that is a part of a person's social life has contributed to more sharing of food in the workplace. More social life, more sharing of food. It is mostly cake and sweet treats because they are easier to carry and keep fresh over the course of the day.
BTW: I am with Carlos. I don't think "Cake Culture" is real. I am retired now but I have never worked where there had ever been any pressure to either bring treats in or to eat the ones that are there. Yes, treats have appeared in the lunchroom and either word got passed around that it is there or there was a "Help yourself" note attached. Nobody has ever offered it to me unless it was an actual group gathering and cake cutting.9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »if "cake culture" was so prevalent - I would expect some anthropology, sociology, psychological type entity to have done some kind of study on it but see nada in google scholar (an article in a newspaper does not count unless its linked to a peer reviewed journal)
Why do I get the feeling Michael Moore will not be doing a documentary on this?
Because it would be a memoir?
Snort.
I tell you what though, I deserve a medal for reading about cake for two days now and not going and getting some. Because you guyz are some hardcore cake pushers, you should be ashamed of your enabling behaviour giving no regard for me losing weight.
I was going to reply starting with, awe muffin. Then realized that's just a little cake and that would make me no better than the others. I'm sorry so many people have been pushing their cake culture ideologies on you.
:bigsmile:6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions