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
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »Weight loss is easy. There's no "trick". Any diet based on CICO works.
Most people eat way too many carbs and not enough fat.
Exercise should be easy and enjoyable.
I think you're confusing easy and simple.
Easy means it doesn't take a lot of effort. For some people, adhering to a calorie deficit may be easy but for most who need to lose weight there is a challenge there; it takes conscious effort.
Simple means uncomplicated. Eat fewer calories than your body uses and you will lose weight. Add in some activity and get the right macro balance and most of the weight lost will be fat. But it isn't always easy to do that.
This concept is what draws the blank stares from people who ask "how do you get in shape?" I explain what I do, which is relatively simple to understand, but not easy to do if you have been living a lifestyle where you just eat what you want in unlimited quantities and don't exercise consistently. I'm tempted to also give them a container of sugar pills and say "and take one of these each day.", I honestly think that would convince them to attempt CICO.
LOL. I love the blank stares I get when I explain how I not only lost weight but normalized my blood sugar levels (eat less, move more, reduce the carbs a little bit). When they ask why I didn't go low carb or keto or Atkins or whatever, I always say "Why? what I am doing is working just fine and a lot easier"7 -
This is NOT my opinion. It's the opinion of some dumb butt in a diabetic community I'm in on Facebook.
Eating nothing but potatoes for a year (without butter or other fats) is a good idea to lose weight and lower your blood sugar. Of course he read about this diet on the web.
My eyes rolled so hard I sprained something.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2002nl/apr/potatoes.htm
Well . . . the Irish peasants WERE the healthiest among the European peasant class while they subsisted on potatoes and buttermilk. *insert sarcasm emoji here*
don't forget the cabbage0 -
This is NOT my opinion. It's the opinion of some dumb butt in a diabetic community I'm in on Facebook.
Eating nothing but potatoes for a year (without butter or other fats) is a good idea to lose weight and lower your blood sugar. Of course he read about this diet on the web.
My eyes rolled so hard I sprained something.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2002nl/apr/potatoes.htm
That Penn guy did this. Or something similar. He lost 100 lbs, but there is no way in hell this was a healthy diet. And I love potatoes.0 -
This is NOT my opinion. It's the opinion of some dumb butt in a diabetic community I'm in on Facebook.
Eating nothing but potatoes for a year (without butter or other fats) is a good idea to lose weight and lower your blood sugar. Of course he read about this diet on the web.
My eyes rolled so hard I sprained something.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2002nl/apr/potatoes.htm
Well . . . the Irish peasants WERE the healthiest among the European peasant class while they subsisted on potatoes and buttermilk. *insert sarcasm emoji here*
also, my Norwegian/German grandmother makes a dish that's basically potatoes and ham boiled in buttermilk, poured over dumplings. it's pretty much the best thing in the entire world.
the ham is optional, she only started adding it after our family wasn't poor anymore. The original recipe, written in Norwegian on a postcard, handed down to her, doesn't call for ham. Because there was no way a bunch of Norwegian immigrants floating over in steerage could afford that kind of luxury.
still the best thing ever without the ham5 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Weight loss is easy. There's no "trick". Any diet based on CICO works.
Most people eat way too many carbs and not enough fat.
Exercise should be easy and enjoyable.
I think you're confusing easy and simple.
Easy means it doesn't take a lot of effort. For some people, adhering to a calorie deficit may be easy but for most who need to lose weight there is a challenge there; it takes conscious effort.
Simple means uncomplicated. Eat fewer calories than your body uses and you will lose weight. Add in some activity and get the right macro balance and most of the weight lost will be fat. But it isn't always easy to do that.
This concept is what draws the blank stares from people who ask "how do you get in shape?" I explain what I do, which is relatively simple to understand, but not easy to do if you have been living a lifestyle where you just eat what you want in unlimited quantities and don't exercise consistently. I'm tempted to also give them a container of sugar pills and say "and take one of these each day.", I honestly think that would convince them to attempt CICO.
LOL. I love the blank stares I get when I explain how I not only lost weight but normalized my blood sugar levels (eat less, move more, reduce the carbs a little bit). When they ask why I didn't go low carb or keto or Atkins or whatever, I always say "Why? what I am doing is working just fine and a lot easier"
I just had my A1C yesterday. It was 5.9, up from 5.7 in May, but that A1C was with using insulin a lot and having hypoglycemic episodes. This A1C was without insulin more than twice at all, and no hypoglycemic episodes. And I ate a bunch of sugar I shouldn't have.
Two A1Cs ago it was 6.2 and I was on 80 units of Lantus and 120 units of Humalog at a time several times a week.
The difference? 45 pounds (And an SGLT-2 drug instead of just insulin). Eating what I want to eat and staying in my calories most days. No special diet required. I'm still losing weight and I've given sugar (cake, candy, ice cream, etc, except for special occasions. Not jelly occasionally, fruit rarely, foods with added sugar like ketchup, and starches like potatoes
) so my A1C should be even lower in three months.
I'm arguing nicely with the guy using what I've learned from lurking here over the last year. I don't think I'll change his mind, but arguing can be fun.6 -
This is NOT my opinion. It's the opinion of some dumb butt in a diabetic community I'm in on Facebook.
Eating nothing but potatoes for a year (without butter or other fats) is a good idea to lose weight and lower your blood sugar. Of course he read about this diet on the web.
My eyes rolled so hard I sprained something.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2002nl/apr/potatoes.htm
Well . . . the Irish peasants WERE the healthiest among the European peasant class while they subsisted on potatoes and buttermilk. *insert sarcasm emoji here*
don't forget the cabbage
Most did not grow cabbage. Their small plots of poor land would not support it.1 -
This is NOT my opinion. It's the opinion of some dumb butt in a diabetic community I'm in on Facebook.
Eating nothing but potatoes for a year (without butter or other fats) is a good idea to lose weight and lower your blood sugar. Of course he read about this diet on the web.
My eyes rolled so hard I sprained something.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2002nl/apr/potatoes.htm
Well . . . the Irish peasants WERE the healthiest among the European peasant class while they subsisted on potatoes and buttermilk. *insert sarcasm emoji here*
also, my Norwegian/German grandmother makes a dish that's basically potatoes and ham boiled in buttermilk, poured over dumplings. it's pretty much the best thing in the entire world.
the ham is optional, she only started adding it after our family wasn't poor anymore. The original recipe, written in Norwegian on a postcard, handed down to her, doesn't call for ham. Because there was no way a bunch of Norwegian immigrants floating over in steerage could afford that kind of luxury.
still the best thing ever without the ham
That sounds amazing. I do love potatoes. I'm the one that always orders large fries (and a diet coke, I'm diabetic) and never turns down seconds of potato dishes.
This is a large portion of why I'm fat though. Not the carbs, just eating too damn much. I still have enough calories right now to get away with ordering the large fries and a burger. I'm going to cry when I have to start ordering a small fry.0 -
This is NOT my opinion. It's the opinion of some dumb butt in a diabetic community I'm in on Facebook.
Eating nothing but potatoes for a year (without butter or other fats) is a good idea to lose weight and lower your blood sugar. Of course he read about this diet on the web.
My eyes rolled so hard I sprained something.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2002nl/apr/potatoes.htm
Well . . . the Irish peasants WERE the healthiest among the European peasant class while they subsisted on potatoes and buttermilk. *insert sarcasm emoji here*
don't forget the cabbage
Most did not grow cabbage. Their small plots of poor land would not support it.
Cabbages are an efficient crop for a peasant smallholding.
I don't understand the implied critique of the Irish diet itself, if I am reading your sarcasm correctly--the inheritance predicaments and Anglo-Irish economic brutalities (like slavery and land clearances) that spectacularly came to a head in '47 don't mean that the diet itself was anything other than splendid and healthful.
Eggs, honey, barley, oats, cole crops, apples, parsnips, seaweed, all kinds of fishes, a huge variety of foraged greens, berries and wild crab apples from the hedgerows, beef in the winter, chickens, and a powerful nutritional foundation of butter/milk/cheese and (starting in the 1600s) potatoes, which are an amazing and calorie-dense crop, until they start rotting in the clamps.
4 -
Just got here--mine is, "Eating fat is fine." I lost 80 lbs. not caring about fat intake at all, as long as I was within my caloric intake goal and eating enough protein and fiber. I always get the skeptical look when I say that...thanks a lot, 1980's...5
-
Weight loss is easy. There's no "trick". Any diet based on CICO works.
Most people eat way too many carbs and not enough fat.
Exercise should be easy and enjoyable.
I think you're confusing easy and simple.
Easy means it doesn't take a lot of effort. For some people, adhering to a calorie deficit may be easy but for most who need to lose weight there is a challenge there; it takes conscious effort.
Simple means uncomplicated. Eat fewer calories than your body uses and you will lose weight. Add in some activity and get the right macro balance and most of the weight lost will be fat. But it isn't always easy to do that.
But the PP referred to 'easy and enjoyable' exercise, not weight loss.
There are forms of exercise that are relatively easy and simple (walking half an hour, for many), simple but not easy (walking the Appalachian Trail in a season, with support, perhaps), easy but not simple (bowling, maybe?), or neither (serious gymnastics, for one). You may quibble freely with those examples, but I think the central point still stands.
I still say very easy exercise isn't as much fun, and neither is very simple exercise.
But that's just a matter of personal taste, like whether someone likes Brussels Sprouts or not. . . unless, of course, they have exercise-related fitness or weight loss goals that their exercise choices don't support. Then they're Just Wrong.
1 -
Just got here--mine is, "Eating fat is fine." I lost 80 lbs. not caring about fat intake at all, as long as I was within my caloric intake goal and eating enough protein and fiber. I always get the skeptical look when I say that...thanks a lot, 1980's...
the 80's are looking for you and they are carrying pitchforks and torches!! 7 -
fat is the best. just the best.4
-
Just got here--mine is, "Eating fat is fine." I lost 80 lbs. not caring about fat intake at all, as long as I was within my caloric intake goal and eating enough protein and fiber. I always get the skeptical look when I say that...thanks a lot, 1980's...
I have always thought they should change the name of dietary fat to something besides "fat". I know that "lipids" isn't entirely on point because fats are just one type of lipid, but it sounds so much more benign and doesn't have the stigma of association with bodily fat.3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Just got here--mine is, "Eating fat is fine." I lost 80 lbs. not caring about fat intake at all, as long as I was within my caloric intake goal and eating enough protein and fiber. I always get the skeptical look when I say that...thanks a lot, 1980's...
I have always thought they should change the name of dietary fat to something besides "fat". I know that "lipids" isn't entirely on point because fats are just one type of lipid, but it sounds so much more benign and doesn't have the stigma of association with bodily fat.
lubricant probably wouldn't fly either...
10 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Just got here--mine is, "Eating fat is fine." I lost 80 lbs. not caring about fat intake at all, as long as I was within my caloric intake goal and eating enough protein and fiber. I always get the skeptical look when I say that...thanks a lot, 1980's...
I have always thought they should change the name of dietary fat to something besides "fat". I know that "lipids" isn't entirely on point because fats are just one type of lipid, but it sounds so much more benign and doesn't have the stigma of association with bodily fat.
yeah, it's amazing how much confusion and grief this simple naming decision has caused0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Weight loss is easy. There's no "trick". Any diet based on CICO works.
Most people eat way too many carbs and not enough fat.
Exercise should be easy and enjoyable.
I think you're confusing easy and simple.
Easy means it doesn't take a lot of effort. For some people, adhering to a calorie deficit may be easy but for most who need to lose weight there is a challenge there; it takes conscious effort.
Simple means uncomplicated. Eat fewer calories than your body uses and you will lose weight. Add in some activity and get the right macro balance and most of the weight lost will be fat. But it isn't always easy to do that.
This concept is what draws the blank stares from people who ask "how do you get in shape?" I explain what I do, which is relatively simple to understand, but not easy to do if you have been living a lifestyle where you just eat what you want in unlimited quantities and don't exercise consistently. I'm tempted to also give them a container of sugar pills and say "and take one of these each day.", I honestly think that would convince them to attempt CICO.
People are always looking for the quick and easy answer.
We're all missing out on this. What we should do is say "Bowflex" and invest in Bowflex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcRTP-vRXJM 4 -
French_Peasant wrote: »This is NOT my opinion. It's the opinion of some dumb butt in a diabetic community I'm in on Facebook.
Eating nothing but potatoes for a year (without butter or other fats) is a good idea to lose weight and lower your blood sugar. Of course he read about this diet on the web.
My eyes rolled so hard I sprained something.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2002nl/apr/potatoes.htm
Well . . . the Irish peasants WERE the healthiest among the European peasant class while they subsisted on potatoes and buttermilk. *insert sarcasm emoji here*
don't forget the cabbage
Most did not grow cabbage. Their small plots of poor land would not support it.
Cabbages are an efficient crop for a peasant smallholding.
I don't understand the implied critique of the Irish diet itself, if I am reading your sarcasm correctly--the inheritance predicaments and Anglo-Irish economic brutalities (like slavery and land clearances) that spectacularly came to a head in '47 don't mean that the diet itself was anything other than splendid and healthful.
Eggs, honey, barley, oats, cole crops, apples, parsnips, seaweed, all kinds of fishes, a huge variety of foraged greens, berries and wild crab apples from the hedgerows, beef in the winter, chickens, and a powerful nutritional foundation of butter/milk/cheese and (starting in the 1600s) potatoes, which are an amazing and calorie-dense crop, until they start rotting in the clamps.
Yes they are, but the yield per square foot is small compared to potatoes and they don't winter like potatoes do. It was not practical for the typical Irish peasant.
The problem in Ireland was that, because of laws preventing land ownership by the peasants, the amount of land each family had to grow food on got smaller and smaller each generation as the population grew, which meant that the crops that could be grown on that land were fewer and fewer (not to mention the quality of the soil became worse and worse). That is why they reached the point where they could only grow potatoes and had to subsist on them. Most families also had a cow or shared one so buttermilk was available after selling the milk and butter. All of the other things you mentioned just were not available to the average Irish peasant, even the foraged things because of the population density and the amount of land that was owned by the Anglo-Irish. It was illegal to forage on their land, punishable by death, just like poaching. It was also illegal to fish in most streams and rivers because those were also owned.
Potatoes and buttermilk were actually more nutritious than the diet of many other peasants elsewhere. The sarcasm was because they were forced to subsist on it because of government policies and the penal laws.6 -
This is NOT my opinion. It's the opinion of some dumb butt in a diabetic community I'm in on Facebook.
Eating nothing but potatoes for a year (without butter or other fats) is a good idea to lose weight and lower your blood sugar. Of course he read about this diet on the web.
My eyes rolled so hard I sprained something.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2002nl/apr/potatoes.htm
Well . . . the Irish peasants WERE the healthiest among the European peasant class while they subsisted on potatoes and buttermilk. *insert sarcasm emoji here*
also, my Norwegian/German grandmother makes a dish that's basically potatoes and ham boiled in buttermilk, poured over dumplings. it's pretty much the best thing in the entire world.
the ham is optional, she only started adding it after our family wasn't poor anymore. The original recipe, written in Norwegian on a postcard, handed down to her, doesn't call for ham. Because there was no way a bunch of Norwegian immigrants floating over in steerage could afford that kind of luxury.
still the best thing ever without the ham
Wooed for the bolded, just so you know.
0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Just got here--mine is, "Eating fat is fine." I lost 80 lbs. not caring about fat intake at all, as long as I was within my caloric intake goal and eating enough protein and fiber. I always get the skeptical look when I say that...thanks a lot, 1980's...
I have always thought they should change the name of dietary fat to something besides "fat". I know that "lipids" isn't entirely on point because fats are just one type of lipid, but it sounds so much more benign and doesn't have the stigma of association with bodily fat.
lubricant probably wouldn't fly either...
I can see K-Y sales exploding.4 -
2
-
French_Peasant wrote: »This is NOT my opinion. It's the opinion of some dumb butt in a diabetic community I'm in on Facebook.
Eating nothing but potatoes for a year (without butter or other fats) is a good idea to lose weight and lower your blood sugar. Of course he read about this diet on the web.
My eyes rolled so hard I sprained something.
https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2002nl/apr/potatoes.htm
Well . . . the Irish peasants WERE the healthiest among the European peasant class while they subsisted on potatoes and buttermilk. *insert sarcasm emoji here*
don't forget the cabbage
Most did not grow cabbage. Their small plots of poor land would not support it.
Cabbages are an efficient crop for a peasant smallholding.
I don't understand the implied critique of the Irish diet itself, if I am reading your sarcasm correctly--the inheritance predicaments and Anglo-Irish economic brutalities (like slavery and land clearances) that spectacularly came to a head in '47 don't mean that the diet itself was anything other than splendid and healthful.
Eggs, honey, barley, oats, cole crops, apples, parsnips, seaweed, all kinds of fishes, a huge variety of foraged greens, berries and wild crab apples from the hedgerows, beef in the winter, chickens, and a powerful nutritional foundation of butter/milk/cheese and (starting in the 1600s) potatoes, which are an amazing and calorie-dense crop, until they start rotting in the clamps.
Yes they are, but the yield per square foot is small compared to potatoes and they don't winter like potatoes do. It was not practical for the typical Irish peasant.
The problem in Ireland was that, because of laws preventing land ownership by the peasants, the amount of land each family had to grow food on got smaller and smaller each generation as the population grew, which meant that the crops that could be grown on that land were fewer and fewer (not to mention the quality of the soil became worse and worse). That is why they reached the point where they could only grow potatoes and had to subsist on them. Most families also had a cow or shared one so buttermilk was available after selling the milk and butter. All of the other things you mentioned just were not available to the average Irish peasant, even the foraged things because of the population density and the amount of land that was owned by the Anglo-Irish. It was illegal to forage on their land, punishable by death, just like poaching. It was also illegal to fish in most streams and rivers because those were also owned.
Potatoes and buttermilk were actually more nutritious than the diet of many other peasants elsewhere. The sarcasm was because they were forced to subsist on it because of government policies and the penal laws.
Gotcha on the sarcasm. I think we are in agreement and any difference in what we are saying depends on the timeframe under consideration. I absolutely agree that in the several decades before '47, the potato was being grown to the utter exclusion of more difficult/less calorie dense crops by the most desperate tier of peasants (out of curiosity I looked it up and parsnips have the same caloric value as potatoes, but they are a pain in the butt to grow, you have to waste space with them going to seed since they are biennial, and the seed is only viable for a year; same situation with cabbage, but only 1/3 the calories). As a medievalist, I am thinking of a broader scope. Also, peasants in general ran a wide economic gamut, so the closer you were to bourgeois the more variation you would have, whether in 1846 or 5 centuries earlier. And you are correct that any harvesting rights would have intricate rules attached to them, likely being rented to the wealthier peasants by the mid-1800s.
The potato was both a blessing and a curse, because it likely contributed to the 3x population explosion in the century preceding '47, so people were fed, but it also allowed for the increasingly smaller allotments due to the inheritance problems (1 farm split between numerous sons) combined with the clearances to raise beef for the "Beefeaters" and the various other abuses such as the Corn Laws and stripping of rights from Catholics.
I don't have any experience with clamps as would have been used by the Irish peasants, but we have a root cellar and to my surprise the vegetables like leeks and cabbage have lasted pretty well; unfortunately nothing lasts long enough for me to render an opinion on their relative storage lifespan vs. potatoes...although I do still have leeks in the fridge that were planted spring of 2016 that are going concerns. I guess I should probably use those, huh!5 -
Weight loss is easy. There's no "trick". Any diet based on CICO works.
Most people eat way too many carbs and not enough fat.
Exercise should be easy and enjoyable.
I think you're confusing easy and simple.
Easy means it doesn't take a lot of effort. For some people, adhering to a calorie deficit may be easy but for most who need to lose weight there is a challenge there; it takes conscious effort.
Simple means uncomplicated. Eat fewer calories than your body uses and you will lose weight. Add in some activity and get the right macro balance and most of the weight lost will be fat. But it isn't always easy to do that.
But the PP referred to 'easy and enjoyable' exercise, not weight loss.
There are forms of exercise that are relatively easy and simple (walking half an hour, for many), simple but not easy (walking the Appalachian Trail in a season, with support, perhaps), easy but not simple (bowling, maybe?), or neither (serious gymnastics, for one). You may quibble freely with those examples, but I think the central point still stands.
I still say very easy exercise isn't as much fun, and neither is very simple exercise.
But that's just a matter of personal taste, like whether someone likes Brussels Sprouts or not. . . unless, of course, they have exercise-related fitness or weight loss goals that their exercise choices don't support. Then they're Just Wrong.
I was talking about his (her?) first sentence/paragraph "Weight loss is easy. There's no 'trick.' Any diet based on CICO works."
I agree with you on the exercise.1 -
French_Peasant wrote: »
I don't have any experience with clamps as would have been used by the Irish peasants, but we have a root cellar and to my surprise the vegetables like leeks and cabbage have lasted pretty well; unfortunately nothing lasts long enough for me to render an opinion on their relative storage lifespan vs. potatoes...although I do still have leeks in the fridge that were planted spring of 2016 that are going concerns. I guess I should probably use those, huh!
yeah, You might want to think about using those. I am thinking of growing potatoes next year. I was reading up on how you can do it in a half-barrel planter. I don't have a large garden but can find a corner for a barrel.
2 -
yes to I did mean when I hear a calorie is a calorie & doesn't matter what you eat, I think it does. But want to add that I was thinking If I'd known about calorie deficit years ago I would have started then. I tried so many things (didn't work) but never heard of calorie deficit. I wonder how many other ppl don't know about it?4
-
yes to I did mean when I hear a calorie is a calorie & doesn't matter what you eat, I think it does. But want to add that I was thinking If I'd known about calorie deficit years ago I would have started then. I tried so many things (didn't work) but never heard of calorie deficit. I wonder how many other ppl don't know about it?
Who have you heard saying that it doesn't matter what you eat?
New unpopular opinion: Artificial sweeteners rock!15 -
~ I don't think it matters if you eat 6 small meals or 2-3 bigger meals.
~ I don't think eating up to one hour after you wake up (breakfast) is necessary. I usually have my 1st meal 3-6 hours after I wake up and I find breakfast makes me hungrier.
~ I believe that there's real food and "fake" food. "Fake" food is to me the heavily processed foods. Not that I have a problem eating tasty "fake" foods. :P
~ I believe people who've been thin all their lives (like really thin) just undereat and their metabolism is lower. I only know one person who actually has something with her thyroid and can afford to eat a lot without big consequenses.
~ And in the end I believe that being of a certain size, achieving something you want is a consequense of making habits. Without it becoming a part of you, it will be very hard to maintain your goal.
6 -
~ I don't think it matters if you eat 6 small meals or 2-3 bigger meals.
~ I don't think eating up to one hour after you wake up (breakfast) is necessary. I usually have my 1st meal 3-6 hours after I wake up and I find breakfast makes me hungrier.
~ I believe that there's real food and "fake" food. "Fake" food is to me the heavily processed foods. Not that I have a problem eating tasty "fake" foods. :P
~ I believe people who've been thin all their lives (like really thin) just undereat and their metabolism is lower. I only know one person who actually has something with her thyroid and can afford to eat a lot without big consequenses.
~ And in the end I believe that being of a certain size, achieving something you want is a consequense of making habits. Without it becoming a part of you, it will be very hard to maintain your goal.
So if I take a bunch of "real" foods and combine them together and put a wrapper on it (highly processed), they become a fake food? lol
Also, you think that people who are thin have lower metabolisms?? That makes sense. Maybe they just tend to habitually eat at maintenance naturally. Maybe they're highly energetic people who burn a ton of calories because they're constantly moving around (I know several like this).6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »~ I don't think it matters if you eat 6 small meals or 2-3 bigger meals.
~ I don't think eating up to one hour after you wake up (breakfast) is necessary. I usually have my 1st meal 3-6 hours after I wake up and I find breakfast makes me hungrier.
~ I believe that there's real food and "fake" food. "Fake" food is to me the heavily processed foods. Not that I have a problem eating tasty "fake" foods. :P
~ I believe people who've been thin all their lives (like really thin) just undereat and their metabolism is lower. I only know one person who actually has something with her thyroid and can afford to eat a lot without big consequenses.
~ And in the end I believe that being of a certain size, achieving something you want is a consequense of making habits. Without it becoming a part of you, it will be very hard to maintain your goal.
So if I take a bunch of "real" foods and combine them together and put a wrapper on it (highly processed), they become a fake food? lol
Also, you think that people who are thin have lower metabolisms?? That makes sense. Maybe they just tend to habitually eat at maintenance naturally. Maybe they're highly energetic people who burn a ton of calories because they're constantly moving around (I know several like this).
I was. I maintained between 140-155 from 17-23 on 4000+ calories at 71 inches0 -
I still say very easy exercise isn't as much fun, and neither is very simple exercise.
But that's just a matter of personal taste, like whether someone likes Brussels Sprouts or not. . . unless, of course, they have exercise-related fitness or weight loss goals that their exercise choices don't support. Then they're Just Wrong.
The bolded is not true for me. Hiking is my favorite exercise and it's pretty simple. And it's sometimes easy, though I do prefer when it's not all easy.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I still say very easy exercise isn't as much fun, and neither is very simple exercise.
But that's just a matter of personal taste, like whether someone likes Brussels Sprouts or not. . . unless, of course, they have exercise-related fitness or weight loss goals that their exercise choices don't support. Then they're Just Wrong.
The bolded is not true for me. Hiking is my favorite exercise and it's pretty simple. And it's sometimes easy, though I do prefer when it's not all easy.
Swimming and hiking are my favorite exercises. Both are simple and both are easy for me as far as learning the skills involved. I make sure thy are not easy to accomplish (increase pace, longer distance, more hills (both up and down) on the hikes, etc.)1
https://youtu.be/1XLv_RskNXU
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions